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: C14 dating.

Unread postby Lloyd » Mon Oct 29, 2012 2:47 pm

KG: I am only discussing creationism in context with the bias evident in some postings on this board. If someone is pursuing something with a clear bias in this way, and we are striving to be scientific about EU theory, its important to understand. When someone says "I won't believe XXX" and it is clear it is coming from a non scientific viewpoint, I feel that is important to talk about.

* Do you label me a creationist because I quoted from creationscience.com? Do you label me as biased for the same reason? That site references lots of conventional science. If you're thinking their material is biased, I think you're wrong with regard to their scientific material, which is most of it. They probably believe that Earth is only 6,000 years old, which I think is highly unlikely, but most or many of the features above the Earth's mantle seem likely to be nearly that young. If I find a way to date Grand and Hopi Lakes reliably, which appear to have drained suddenly and carved the Grand Canyon while the sediments were still soft where the canyon eroded through, then I'll be fairly sure that the former supercontinent formed and then broke up shortly before those lakes formed, which was before the Grand Canyon apparently formed. Since the sediments seem to have been laid down during a Great Flood, dating that flood should provide the answer.
KG: I don't think that catastrophism is meaningless. I think it is a very young idea that needs work before anyone understands what processes are or were involved. When I say that something is a hypothesis without evidence, I am talking about the fact that no one has discovered the mechanism that governs nuclear decay as it relates to electrical fields, for example. People state they are influenced by them, and with that I agree (clearly.. that much is backed up by evidence), but just how it works, and under what conditions?

* Did you read what creationscience.com had to say about that, esp. in the section on Origin of the Earth's Radioactivity?
KG: - it is very clear that comets are electrical in nature, based upon very real evidence and predictions.
- Solar theory is another that is very convincingly electrical, in some form.
- Weather on earth seems also to be in this category.
- Ice Cores in Antarctica are not, as far as I can tell. There are some ideas that are challenging standard models, but I am not convinced.
- Genetic Science is not one of these either. We have no theory or method that has been tested to show anything other than millions of years of evolution, but catastrophism definitely slots in nicely with punctuated equilibrium models of species transitions.

* I believe good evidence of electrical effects resulting in rapid evolution was posted on this website about a year ago and was put into a TPOD as well. The Dinosaur Mummification and Electrical Fossilization thread also discussed a lot of similar evidence prior to that. I posted material showing that the ice sheets likely piled up rapidly at first, then piled up much more slowly after that. And Nick pointed out that one or more ancient maps show Antarctica without ice. If you can see Earth weather as involving electrical activity, it shouldn't be hard to imagine the ice sheets as involving it too, since ice sheets likely come from weather.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4328
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: C14 dating.

Unread postby webolife » Mon Oct 29, 2012 2:59 pm

Knomegnome,
I am sympathetic with many of your statements. I have been accused by other posters as being too mainstream or a mugwump on the standard model. It is because of my Earth Science training and degree. I spent much of my life making sense of the standard uniformitarian theories, then much more of my life since then taking those paradigms apart. I have also been earmarked and dismissed by some as a creationist [although I disagree with as many creationists %-wise as I do with SM-ers], a matter of faith, but I hold my science close to the evidence, as close as is knowable, seeking to dis"prove" my own ideas at every turn. After all, I don't want to find out on my deathbed that everything I learned, taught, studied, believed was wrong. I am a diehard for some of my ideas, some are elegant and amazing to me; so I will fight hard to be persuaded to change, but I am very open and have changed some of my core beliefs since being at this forum. Paradigms are good for this... they hold one's position against the winds of spurious change, and can only be overcome by a powerful opponent, ie. the more elegant theory, or ultimately the most powerful agent of all, the Truth.

I beg to differ on your claim that you "do not have a belief system as regards to science" -- every scientist holds to a faith base, and operates from it in interpreting evidence and drawing conclusions. You do believe quite strongly in many of the interpretations offered by standard modellers with respect to uniformitarianism, evolution[ism], genetics, and dating. The fundamental beliefs behind the march of evolution [ie "macro-evolution"] are deeply rooted and take almost a death to remove. Internal consistency is of course a desirable thing for any model, but at its extreme leads to circularity of thinking and logic which disables one from seeing out. Once the outward vision is achieved, many inconsistencies appear which were once overlooked. You used the word "proven" and theories" together in a phrase -- beware of this, it is either the window to your belief system or a deception by which you have been entrapped. Keep your eyes open, as I believe you are trying, and you will catch sparks of amazing truths that will burn out the old "visions" and provide deeper insight to the world.

You are right though, that an alternative explanation does not prove a theory, it must be elegant in incorporating more evidence and useful for predicting more evidence. In addition, there are other forces at work in academia and "scientism" to keep out alternatives, so on this forum some of us spend some time breaking down some of the old paradigms, a painful process at best, and often self-sacrificing.
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: C14 dating.

Unread postby Sparky » Mon Oct 29, 2012 3:30 pm

Last night I heard a radio interviewee say that a certain place was of a certain age, although they had found no organic material.

My question: Why can't dirt be dated? It contains organic matter. :?
"It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong."
"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one."
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire
Sparky
 
Posts: 3517
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:20 pm

Re: C14 dating.

Unread postby webolife » Wed Oct 31, 2012 11:33 am

Dirt is an ongoing recipient of C14 so it doesn't "die" like other organisms which upon death stop receiving C14 from the atmosphere. When an organism dies, it stops metabolizing C14, so whatever C14 it assimilated while alive is left to decay to C12. After about 5700 years, about half of that C14 will have become C12, and the changing ratio of these two isotopes provides the data from which a radiocarbon date is calculated. To date an organism, or a part of an organism, its internal structure must be relatively intact, unlike dirt. Even then, ratio datas must be collected from several parts [usually sent to different labs] and the results compared to get a reasonably estimated average result. In all radiocarbon dating, an assumption is made that the rate of transferance and assimilation of C14 from the upper atmosphere to the biosphere is at an equilibrium level which is the same as the currently measured rate. No catastrophes, at least ones involving the atmosphere in any way, are allowable in radiocarbon dating.
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: C14 dating.

Unread postby Sparky » Wed Oct 31, 2012 2:52 pm

I get the gist of c14 dating, but soil has all sorts of dead matter, plant and animal. :?
"It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong."
"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one."
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire
Sparky
 
Posts: 3517
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:20 pm

Re: C14 dating.

Unread postby 601L1n9FR09 » Thu Nov 01, 2012 9:51 pm

I think the point is that there are live micro-organisms in soil that are still ingesting c-14. The sample is thus contaminated by present day carbon containing current ratios of c-14.
601L1n9FR09
 
Posts: 111
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2011 10:24 am

Re: C14 dating.

Unread postby 601L1n9FR09 » Thu Nov 01, 2012 11:38 pm

KG, mainstream, consensus gets little traction here. Gradualism is only what we experience between catastrophes. Leaving my Lord out of this, the science speaks for itself. Stay with your mainstream dogma. A sinking ship is as good a place as any to be saved. This is not a sinking ship tho. These people know the difference between a fact and a theory. Mainstream, not so much. How else do you explain a guy that does not know the difference being the University of Oxford's Professor for Public Understanding of Science from 1995 until 2008?
601L1n9FR09
 
Posts: 111
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2011 10:24 am

Re: C14 dating.

Unread postby Sparky » Fri Nov 02, 2012 9:05 am

[quote]I think the point is that there are live micro-organisms in soil that are still ingesting c-14. The sample is thus contaminated by present day carbon containing current ratios of c-14.[quote]

Good point ;) But soil that has been taken from a depth, with care, should have fewer living organisms, shouldn't it? :?
"It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong."
"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one."
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire
Sparky
 
Posts: 3517
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:20 pm

Re: C14 dating.

Unread postby knomegnome » Sat Nov 03, 2012 4:33 pm

Sparky wrote:Last night I heard a radio interviewee say that a certain place was of a certain age, although they had found no organic material.

My question: Why can't dirt be dated? It contains organic matter. :?


You don't need organic matter to get dates from rocks, Sparky. Take a look at this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometri ... ng_methods

C14 is pretty old school, as compared to the other methods gaining traction now. There is some debate here as to the reliability of any dating method that uses radioactive decay of any kind.. but until someone comes up with evidence that EM, EU theory, etc can affect radioactive decay strongly enough to throw dates of these kinds off by several orders of magnitude, I'm sticking with them for now.
knomegnome
 
Posts: 57
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2012 2:24 pm

Re: C14 dating.

Unread postby webolife » Sat Nov 03, 2012 4:58 pm

KG,
Have you considered the assumption of the amount of original [parent] material as part of your thinking and acceptance of radiometrics? For example, is it reasonable to assume that everywhere uranium is included in rock there was once a time when there was no lead in that rock? This despite the fact that uranium and lead are found together in nearly 50/50 ratios everywhere in the solar system? Or whether artifacts containing C14 postdate a catastrophe before which C14 was a rarer element in the biosphere? Your starting assumption means everything when it comes to radiometric dating regardless of which isotopes you want to measure. Orders of magnitude of error are fpossible in the assumption of initial [parent] conditions. It's not just about whether the rate is electrically alterable. Btw, have you looked at Gentry's work with polonium halos?
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: C14 dating.

Unread postby Sparky » Sun Nov 04, 2012 11:17 am

C14 is pretty old school, as compared to the other methods gaining traction now.


Well, counting tree rings is old school too, but it works....And this is the c14 thread. :roll:

I was trying to find out if a archaeological dig site could be dated if there were no other evidence besides buildings. If soil could be collected from under a foundation or something and dated.

As far as dating rocks, I saw on the cbs morning show some rock features in a desert which were "natural" but more evidence of electrical formation than water or wind.

It would be interesting to date the Mars blueberries and compare that date to a date of rock spheres which were made in the lab.

Also, date a fulgurite and compare it to the surrounding sand.


For a reliable dating method, I always try to crosscheck by counting rings. :?
"It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong."
"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one."
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire
Sparky
 
Posts: 3517
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:20 pm

Re: C14 dating.

Unread postby jone dae » Fri Dec 07, 2012 6:47 pm

Some ideas from Alfred De Grazia that bear upon radiochronometry-
In geology and biology the currently adopted time scale depends
upon the decay of long-lived radioactive atoms. The possibility
that radioactive decays are environmentally induced has recently
been proposed [9]. Without radiometric dating the rampant
inflation in the magnitude of the cosmic timescale over the last
century [10] will undoubtedly enter a sharp period of regression.
This question will be debated in detail in time; for the present it
is sufficient to say that if radioactive decay processes are not
invariant, then many problems facing Velikovsky will vanish.
The end result might well be a widespread reconsideration of
Velikovsky’s revised chronology. Similarly, if the cosmic time
scale is drastically shortened, then the physical history of the
Earth and Solar System will have to change. –Earl Milton, in Recollections of a Fallen Sky.

Recently, dendrochronologists, historians, meteorologists,
radiocarbon dating specialists, and astronomers combined in a
most unusual enterprise. They delivered a blow to the theory of
the constant Sun. John A. Eddy of the National Center for
Atmospheric Research conveyed the message: "We've
shattered the Principle of Uniformitarianism for the Sun."[14]
He presented evidence mentioned earlier, showing that for 70
Q-CD vol. 4: The Lately Tortured Earth, Ch. 2: The Gaseous Complex 31
years between 1645 and 1715 A.D. sunspots were almost
entirely absent. It proved to be a period of bitter prolonged
winters, when Londoners walked across an iced-over Thames
River, when the Northern Lights hardly displayed themselves,
and when the 11-year sun-spot cycle was absent. Lapses of the
same kind were uncovered in other historical periods.
Other conditions may be expected to vary with sunspots - solar
flares, ozone density, radiation diminution, precipitation,
magnetic fields, atmospheric turbulence, famines and perhaps
even human energy and inventiveness. No doubt the last will
be among the most difficult to prove. No simple search of the
annals of culture will reveal a closely related trend.
Stretching the uniformitarian thesis, more severe storms may
be conjectured for pre-historic times, in an attempt to keep the
planetary bodies in place, eliminate cometary encounters and
still explain catastrophes upon Earth. Thus Harlow Shapley,
who led some scientists in an attack upon Velikovsky's
catastrophism in 1950, himself had in 1935 proposed a solar
nova as the explosive generator of space X-rays.
Hurricanes, volcanism, interrupted rotation, ozone destruction,
ice ages, geomagnetic field reversals, biological extinctions and
even explosions of cometary and meteorological material on
Earth can be rationalized up to a point as effects of solar
misbehavior. Such a theory is possible, but it would be like
hiring a thief to catch a thief. For the Sun would then become
sole factor in quantavolutions, in the effort to exclude other
bodies from trespassing upon Earth. As we shall see, there is
too much evidence of other operative factors to assign the
whole job of quantavolutions to the Sun, even though, as a
matter of fact, the Sun is the original sire of quantavolution in
the solar system, according to the model of Solaria Binaria,
mentioned above, which begins history with a nova of the Sun.
According to the quantavolutionary theory here presented, solar
behavior has exhibited only effects of a moderate kind since its
gradual emergence as a distinct bright image some thousands
of years ago. Before then, the Sun was hidden or a bright
prominence in the cloudy firmament. Its indirect influence was
Q-CD vol. 4: The Lately Tortured Earth, Ch. 2: The Gaseous Complex 32
of course always paramount. But should the counter-thesis be
proposed that the Sun was responsible directly for earthly
catastrophes, it would have to be said that its
"uniformitarianism," though spotty, was nevertheless much
greater than that of the planetary family descended from the
Sun's binary partner, which I have called Super-Uranus after
the Greco-Roman first Heavenly Father.
The sunspots may be a trailing-off effect of the exhaustion of
the electrical current and magnetic tube. That is, they may be
fairly regular attempts of electricity to jump the gap between
the Sun and its binary. In such a case, the sunspots should
become less intense and more sporadic with the passage of
time, like the plasmoids and bolts of Jupiter.
Climate is the typical behavior of the atmosphere over any
geological column during a longish time. Every island, they say
in the Caribbean and Aegean Seas, has its own climate; "miniclimate"
would be precise. More expansively, we can talk of a
regional climate or a global climate. Too, we shall soon have a
"cosmic climate," since evidence is fast accumulating of solarplanetary
transactions on a continuing climatic basis.
Earthquakes, volcanism, winds, precipitation, magnetic fields,
temperatures, electric currents and the biosphere transact in
climatic affairs.
One does not get this sense of a welter and complex of factors
in going far back by conventional chronology. Rather one has
the sense that climates have swirled around in multiform
changes in the Quaternary period but then somehow climates
withdraw into the background while we are presented a broad
succession of ages in the tens of millions of years each, when
life changed very slowly and conditions of biological survival
and adaptation must have been constant over long periods of
time. One is privileged to view charts in which paleontological
developments occur at the slowest imaginable pace, with only a
dozen or so boundary lines where, certainly, it is given that
climates changed and new names are provided - Devonian,
Carboniferous, and so on. Did climates, with all the factors that
engender them, stand still for these long periods in rigid
constancy? This would be unbelievable. If in between the
Q-CD vol. 4: The Lately Tortured Earth, Ch. 2: The Gaseous Complex 33
major boundaries of epochs, climates changed as they have in
the brief recent past of the Quaternary, then the paleontological
and geological record is far too short, or contains very little
information. In sum, either the world has changed and the
recent past speeds up wildly in comparison with the remote
past, or else the remote past is still quite unknown despite its
diligent study over two centuries by numerous disciplines and
thousands of scholars. –Alfred De Grazia in The Lately Tortured Earth, Ch.2.

Presently, radiometric dating, particularly the Potassium-Argon
test, is determining the ages of hominids, and this test is applied
ordinarily to volcanic issue. The stretching of the time of
hominids has gone on regardless of definitions of boundaries,
and little attention is given to traditional geochronology. If the
volcanic ashes imbedding a bone are adjudged to be two million
years old, that is usually the end of age reckoning. So the
hominids have gone back beyond the Pleistocene well into the
Pliocene.
How baffling the time element can be is suggested in an
incident. A skull of homo erectus was discovered in Kenya by
Bernard Ngeneo, working under Richard Leakey. It was dated
at 1.5 million years. Peking man, a prototype of homo erectus
had been dated by non-radiometric methods at 0.5 million years
or less. Leakey said, "this raises questions about the true age of
Peking Man. The Chinese must develop a new, different way to
date their sites for more accuracy. Upon re-examination, they'll
probably find these fossils to be a million years older than now
dated."[6]
In effect, the 40K-40A dating method is giving very old and by
implication "good" results, and should be the sole method of
plotting man's ascent! If so, some dates of hominid and homo
fossils that were estimated before radiometric methods were
employed may be useless. Or else these types lived for millions
of years on Earth. As I stated earlier, modern types are now
being found aged in the millions of years, not only skulls of
modern volume but also modern bones, and now modern
footprints. –Alfred De Grazia, in Ch.2 of Homo Schizo I.



The defensive positions of a century ago are irreparably in
disrepair, however. At that time the age of the Earth itself was
being argued in the highest scientific circles in the neighborhood
of thirty to ninety million years, which would on today's
hominid reckoning give perhaps one-tenth of all earth-time for
the development of man [16]. But then man was still hovering
in the five figure bracket of 20,000 to 90,000 years. Certainly,
were it not for radioactive dating methods, evolutionary theory
would be at an impasse for lack of time for mutation and for
natural selection to transform the biosphere.
Like question-begging is the plague of natural selection, circular
reasoning is the plague of traditional geochronology. "The
rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks more
accurately... circularity is inherent in the derivation of time
scales."[17] There are neither transition fossils in any number to
mark the important fossil stages, nor complete fossil columns
showing the evolutionary sequence; nor is evolution a hard set
of facts. Yet index fossils with a doctrinaire chronology are imposed
on the rocks and the rocks assigned dates. Then rocks of
comparable type, though lacking fossils, are dated accordingly,
and many of the strata and formations surrounding them, too.
Velikovsky has ingeniously displayed, using Blanckenhorn's
study of the Syrian-Palestinian rift valley, through which pass
the Jordan River and Dead Sea, that the old geochronology,
before radiochronometry, could properly formulate for it a
history of a few thousand years, rather than many millions of
years [18]. He further used proto-historical evidence, that of
Biblical sources, to strengthen the theory of short duration for
the rifting of the area. The older methods of geochronology are
often too flexible to engender confidence.
We must bring time into a new order. So long as it is the tool of
the old vision of a point-by-point development of humanity,
time will stretch out of bounds. The Holocene-Pleistocene
boundary is not fixed upon an event, unless it be an end of the
ice ages. But the ice ages are still going on, and it is doubtful
that they played much of a role in the humanization and
diffusion of man, except for imposing sometimes rather obvious
Q-CD vol 6: Homo Schizo I, Ch.2: Hominids in Hologenesis 53
limits upon settlement. The Pleistocene-Pliocene boundary was
set by the International Geological Congress of 1950 on the
basis of late Cenozoic stratigraphy in Italy, more precisely on
the entrance of northern marine invertebrates into the
Mediterranean. This boundary, too, is scarcely useful, and
should be ignored in reckoning the origins of man in time. The
Pleistocene record is always discontinuous and fragmentary,
especially in glaciated areas. The task of scholars "would have
been incomparably easier if some stratigraphic section covering
the entire Pleistocene were available, showing, for instance a
complete sequence of alternating tills and soils. Unfortunately,
such a section seems to be available nowhere in the glaciated
areas."[19]
We note, too, how geological time-reckoning expands as we go
back in history. The Upper Paleolithic artistic period was dated
back 30,000 years by French scholars and geologists, working
on remains in caves and rock shelters. Estimates of
sedimentation rates of deposits into which artifacts were
sandwiched, gave such duration. But the dating of the Upper
Paleolithic artists is more a working consensus that an
absolutely tested fix. Pergrony and Caslis give us an age of
4500 years ago for metals, a Neolithic lasting 5000 years before
then, a Mesolithic of 2500 years, an Upper Paleolithic of 30,000
years, a Middle Paleolithic of 80,000 years and Lower
Paleolithic of from 800,000 to 1,500,000 years [20]. As we
have pointed out, this last figure is now verging upon five
million years.
The Upper Paleolithic period falls between the claimed periods
of competence of radiocarbon dating and potassium-argon
dating. The most careful work on this period is therefore
dependent on sedimentary dating in large part, and this cannot
get around the possibilities of periods of flood and torrents,
laying down blanket after blanket of clay and gravel to create
illusions, in today's peaceful landscape, of the passage of much
time. This is no new problem. For instance, when Alfred
Wallace was writing his studies of the distribution of animal
life in the nineteenth century, he had to confess to the great
difficulty of judging sedimentary deposits [21]. In repeated
discussions at the Dordogne cave and shelter sites with French
scientists who have excavated and are responsible for them, I
have been unable to accept their meticulous reconstructions as
valid.
In the end, they rely nowadays upon carbondating, which
although it often upsets their expectations, at least keeps them
in the Paleolithic period rather than moving them into more
recent times. That radiocarbondating which is based upon
measuring a ratio involving the diminishing amount of carbon-
14 isotopes discoverable in organic remains, can be erratic,
owing to atmospheric, species, and soil transformations, has
already been the subject of investigation. Recently, changes in
the Earth's geomagnetic field have been added to the several
conditions that alter radiocarbon dating. Unfortunately, the
usefulness of radiocarbon dating decreases exponentially as we
move into the periods of the neolithic and beyond, when the
need for a dating instrument becomes increasingly acute [22].
Geologists bought evolutionary time to preserve themselves
from alternative catastrophic hypotheses. Whereupon the
biologists and anthropologists, together with the geologists,
were persuaded of radiochronometry by geo-physicists. The
Potassium-Argon test claims validity over a time span of a
billion years and more, beginning at 100,000 years or less
before the present. Its favorite rock for testing is erupted
volcanic material, ashes and lava. It establishes a constant rate
of decay of the isotope potassium-40 into the isotope argon-40
(40K to 40A). Then it measures the amount of 40K and 40A in
a rock sample and, by the proportion of the two, determines the
'age' of the rock, hence of fossils embedded in the rock. A high
proportion of Argon-40 signifies an old age.
Unfortunately for its validity, and despite the brilliant technical
theory and achievements represented in its applications, the
40K ug 40A test suffers from a defect common to radioactive
elements in nature. The elements migrate. In consequence, the
proportions change, giving illusory ages. Rocks can both
acquire and lose both elements or either alone.
Moreover, one cannot rely upon a temporal sequence that
appears nicely to show older strata succeeded by younger strata
as a proof that the sequence occurred smoothly and without
disturbance. For the whole sequence may have been laid down
in short order during a turbulent period that is accompanied by
high argon deposition, or the eruptive sequence of a volcanic
source can lay down deposits, first heavier, then lighter, in
Argon-40, owing to a tendency of such trace materials to
migrate from heavier to lighter rock. It may not be necessary to
disbelieve absolutely in the validity of 40K ug 40A dating to
maintain a quantavolutionary opinion of the process of
humanization. However, it is more difficult to explain certain
critical fossil data and the mechanics of humanization while
adhering to a long time perspective. Vast stretches of noneventful
time have to be accepted between the occasions of
significant changes, such as bipedalism, large brain, tools, and
language; or else the finest, minutes, multitudinous ladder rungs
or steps are forced upon one, leaving one again in baffling
contradictions and a need to search for a meaning behind
evolution such that every bit of change requires every
subsequent bit of change, connecting intelligence with
depilation, and so, on, thus accounting for the confusion of
ladder-rung-labelling, with now one trait, then another being
given priority. –Alfred De Grazia, Ch.2, Homo Schizo I.
User avatar
jone dae
 
Posts: 95
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2012 8:47 am
Location: Los Angeles

Re: C14 dating.

Unread postby Lloyd » Sat Dec 08, 2012 11:52 am

Sunspots
On this thread, http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=8120, Celeste referenced http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14615526, which she seems to say suggests that sunspots are directly related to movement of the Sun around the solar system's barycenter, which is very near and above the Sun. But the main cause is supposedly that the Sun spirals around the galaxy moving above the galactic plane for 11 years and then below it for the next 11 years. This affects the charge and magnetic fields, which results in sunspots or lack of sunspots. I think nothing was said about how the periods of no sunspots for many decades occurred, but maybe the site does say something about that.

Radioactive Dating Methods
The most impressive finding I've heard of is Walter Brown's discussion of a study that found that the rate of radioactive decay is greatly increased when atoms are stripped of all electrons, as with compressive ionization. His site is http://creationscience.com.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4328
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: C14 dating.

Unread postby 4realScience » Sun Dec 09, 2012 5:24 pm

OK, I an an EU enthusiast but:


Carbon 14 dating is confirmed experimentally by ice cores from out polar regions for some _millions of years_. Also confirmed by tree rings.

I think we can rely on C14 dating through the period where Earth moved from being a moon of Saturn to a planet of Sol. I still think that is the best explanation of the data we have.

C14 is cross-confirmed. Let this falsify some of our theories, just as we have challenged mainstream science to do.
4realScience
 
Posts: 97
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:20 pm

Re: C14 dating.

Unread postby Lloyd » Sun Dec 09, 2012 6:33 pm

4Real, kindly provide evidence.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4328
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe - Planetary Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest