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 webolife » Mon Dec 10, 2012 10:44 pm

4Real,
Think about some basic facts of C-14:
1. It is created high above the troposphere in conditions highly dependent upon solar flux.
2. It is found in a ratio of about 1 part to 1 million of C-12 in living organisms.
3. After 5 half-lives, or about 30,000 alleged years, there is too little C-14 in any sample to reliably count.
4. There is no way whatsoever to correlate radiocarbon to "known" times before about 5000 BP; only by assumption of perpetuous equilibrium conditions can C-14 be called upon for dates before that time.
5. If, as I mentioned earlier, there was a time before the recent earth-changing catastrophe when the transport of C-14 from the upper atmosphere to the biosphere was blocked by [greenhouse] atmospheric conditions, as is suggested by all fossil data, then any materials from around, during or before that atmospheric structure-changing catastrophe would contain only minute amounts if any of C-14, causing all such materials to be dated with an incorrectly "old" age.
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: 2516
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: C14 dating.

Unread postby 601L1n9FR09 » Fri Dec 14, 2012 10:31 pm

Hi Webo,
If I might add, if the same folks insisting on the reliability of C14 are to be believed there was once a firm belief in the "reducing atmosphere" and is currently a consensus that CO² has fluctuated enough to drive warming and cooling of the same atmosphere. In addition to cosmic radiation (from my view pretty much ions at varying rates of speed) the sea levels and sea temperatures impact profoundly on the amount of CO² in the atmosphere. To believe this had or has no effect on the ratio of C14 is at best an assumption, and likely an erroneous one. There are too many assumptions. To accept any of them as fact is bad enough but to accept all of them is a colossal leap of faith. I suppose I could go on typing but I think I am already overboard.

Peace
601L1n9FR09
 
Posts: 111
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2011 10:24 am

Re: C14 dating.

Unread postby jone dae » Sun Mar 03, 2013 5:49 pm

(removing duplicate post....)
Last edited by jone dae on Sun Mar 03, 2013 6:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
jone dae
 
Posts: 95
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2012 8:47 am
Location: Los Angeles

Re: C14 dating.

Unread postby jone dae » Sun Mar 03, 2013 5:50 pm

I noticed that this forum isn't as active as some of the others are. This is surprising, since much of what Old School or Traditional science says, and the public says after them, like parrots, is based on the time-scales, on the dates, that they assign to objects or events, from the micro to the macro, and on to the galactic. Therefore, the unreliability and inherent limitations of radiocarbon dating, or radiochronology as it is sometimes called, are critically important. Every scientist should be concerned about them.
So, here is some more of the work that the late Alfred De Grazia, Prof. Emeritus from Univ. of Chicago, did that discusses this subject: (Please note that all the small flaws in the text positions or alignments are in the original. I might prepare a corrected copy as time allows.)

1
Figure (Table) 6
DISPUTED EXPLANATIONS OF THE TESTS OF TIME
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Test Idea of the Test Evolutionary Quantavolutionary
(mostly of absolute time) Explanation Explanation
I. Earth Surface Features
1. Gross forms and Estimate of age, based on Convection-currents from All forms can be quickly
Relations theory and presupposi- hot mantle, snow and created under high-energy
tions, of lakes, cratering, rain, and erosion define conditions.
diastrophism, continental features over long times.
displacement, etc.
2. Rock (or fossils) Judgements of freshness, Appearances are deceptive; The “eye,” feeling, and taste
appearance looseness, etc. gradual erosion and can distinguish age often
cementation
3. Superposition of strata Over-layers younger than Accepted and basic Accepted and basic
under-layers, barring intrusions,
displacement
2
4. Sedimentation of Rate of deposit, based on Generally, present rates are Revolutions have generally
materials observation and / or sup- typical of past rates intruded with exponential
positions of past rates rates
5. Erosion of materials Rate of deposit, based on Generally, present rates are Revolutions have generally
observation and/or sup- typical of past rates intruded with exponential
positions of past rates rates
6. Salt deposits Same as I-1 plus I-4 Gradual evaporation of Dumping of hot waters or
stranded salt waters sudden burial
7. Metal deposits Same as I.1 Old magmatic extrusions Catastrophic column fallout or
from below cosmic dumping.
8. Caves, stalagmites Present rate of growth, re- Water filtration through Thermal and electrical hitrocalculated
limestone, etc., long-term energy digging and carving
9. Metamorphic Rock Past heat and pressure rate; Gradual heating and non- Quasi-explosive and/or electrical
terminated + I.1-2 castrophic forming trical heating
10. Magnetism of Rocks Magnetometer registers last Infrequent reversals now be- Successive reversals amid
melt (a) Magnetic N ori- lieved in with great effects moving surfaces shortens
entation and (b) intensity time
11. Fluid pressures (gas, oil, Pressure, quantity, rate, exit Entombed fluids finally Continued pressure means
water) time = retrocalculation break through late entrapment
3
12. Conglomeration Same as I.1-4-5 Waters and air aggregate Great forces from long distdifferent
material ances agglomerate material
II. Biological Indicator
1. Birth and Extinction of Elapsed time for species to Occurs slowly by II.5-6-7 Occurs by radiation and cataspecies
develop, ramify, and be- and individually with slow strophe. “Missing links”
come extinct ecological change every where
2. Fossil (includes bones, See I.3 Orderly succession of Orderly short-time specie sucpollen,
etc.) species from primitive to cession; sometimes devolusuperposition
modern tion, cross-zoning and confused
identification of assemblages
3. Fossil zoning Ecological life niches oc- Ladder of long-time succes- Disastrous cross-currents transcupied
and abandoned, sion of life niches port and superimpose difchanged
and overlaid ferent fossil beds. Vs. I-3
4. Fossil succession Superposed beds carry Evolution promotes young, Many exceptions, assumptions,
younger, more developed developed fossils to higher anomalies, mixtures
species rocks
5. Adaptation time Time elapsed for accommo- New species take long Prompt adaptation occurs with
dating to new surround- breeding for their heavy mutation; many vaings
various life niches cated niches
4
6. Selection time Time estimates for prolifera- Requires long time Rapid diffusion common
tion of species vs.
competition
7. Mutation time Time between successful With enough time, enough Radiation and ecological dismutations
plus prolifera- successful mutation for asters bunch changes; young
tion for species develop- evolutionary branching species abruptly succeeded.
ment “Missing links” rare
8. Tree-ring (dendro- Seasons mark solar years on Uniformity of recent past Major gaps and variations in
chronology) logs back 5,000 years if evident, earth motions rings; possible substitute
matched constant cause of rings
9. Fossil appearance Youth and age of outcrop Experts cannot tell age by Experts can see that deposits
or exposed fossils and visual examination believed old are really young
bones expertly guessed
10. Coral reefs Measure growth; relate to Coral columns of 105 years Coral rate varies with mineyears
by present rate found. Also many fossil rals, heat. Can grow in
corals before shallows of rising waters.
11. Character of Variety, numbers, ambiance, Views assemblages as acci- Views for cause, dimenslons
assemblages and cause of death dents or repeated incidents of catastrophe, extinction
5
12. Fossil fuel formations Time required to form coal Organic sediments, long- Bull-dozing, deep burial of
(coal, oil) and oil term, special conditions heated biosphere and some
cosmic oil fallout
III. Chemo-physical Measures
1. Radiocarbon(14C) Decay of 14C to 14N in Accepted and basic, with Atmospheric and decay indead
organisum occasional minor devia- constancy invalidates preproportionate
to time of tions 2,500 B.P.
death to 50,000 years
2. 40Potassim - 40Argon Decay of 40K to 40A in ig- Can approximate rock age Migration, new infusions of
ratio neous rock proportionate back to pre-Cambrian 40A invalidate; anomalies
to last melt, 105 - 109 years
3. Uranium238 - Lead206 Decay of 40K to 206Pb in Same as III-2 Migration and decay inconratio
minerals (non-sedimentary) stancy of U-Lead chain inmeasured
from original validates
crystallization of rock
4. Thorium232 - Lead208 Decay of 232Th to 208Pb in Same as III-2 Same as III-3
ratio same
6
5. Rubidium87-Strontium87 Decay of 87Rb to 87Sr in Same as III-2 Migration of Rb invalidates
ratio minerals with 87Sr mea- completely
sured from original rock
6. Thermo-Luminescence Loss of luminescence of A promising method not Promising, little applied, still
rocks and ceramics since yet applied and reliable in realm of nuclear uncerlast
heating beyond 580ºC tainties
7. Uranium fission tracks Etchings of charged particle A promising supplement to Subject to radionic disasters
dating collision with micas are III-3 and cosmic-ray erasures
counted and related to
decay rate
8. Oceanic uranium Elaspsed time for uranium Unmeasurable or incompre- Short time (104) to reach preabundance
dating to reach present level hensible sent levels of accumulation
given known input and
output
9. Radiocarbon non- Rate used for dating implies Anomalous or unverifiable Atmosphere transformed imequilibrium
method of decline of 14C to zero in plying castasrophes
dating atmosphere 13,000 years
7
10. Temperature gradients Loss of heat is function of Inner dynamics of bodies Declining heat is function of
of planet known conditions, known unknown; radio-activity; elapsed time and recent cataevent,
hence tells elapsed earth fractures are hot strophes; heat is escaping at
time plate boundaries fracture boundaries
11. Soils chemical analysis Micro-constituents of sedi- Normal fires, air, water de- Volume, mix, context permit
ments (soil, ash, clay, etc.) posits produce exterme revolutionary period indexshow
events. constituents ing and portray
IV. Astronomical Motions
1. Planetary and Satellite Regular measureable orbits Accepted; universal laws re- Orbits are empirical; change-
Orbits permit retrocalculations of troactive to solar system able by high energy disancient
events genesis placements
2. Rotation of bodies Regular rotation re- Accepted; calcuable to ori- Origin of rotation from older
liable retrocaluclations ginal emplacement of motions; all motions changebody;
known regular and able redically, cf. Venus
minute changes
3. Elecrical fields Periods of heavy Earth dis- Speculations; Earth is low- A developing analysis of
(charging) charges exist and correlate charged and always has several period by evidence
to human behavior been of cosmic discharges
8
4. Solar emission Solar winds and radiance Minor durations have occur- Major and minor; patterned
inconstancy rates can be retro-corre- red but generally constant electrical behavior occurred
lated with major events behavior
5. Resonances Planets Venus and Mercury The events are assignable The resonances corresponded
achieve periodical posi- but of unknown timing to legendary large-body entions
indicating some counters
special event.
6. Librations; oscillations Gravitation explains and Accepted; all irregularities Fossil motion detectable;
of satellites permits retro-calculation explainable by gravitation Moon recently emplaced
of Moon’s increasing and motion laws
distance and Earth’s
slower rotation
7. Gravitational constancy All retrocalculations practi- Laws are absolute and must The constancy is experienced,
cally are measured with be consistent with specula- not absolute; may be in an
laws of gravitation tion “unknown” multi-force field
8. Age of universe Retrocalculated in billions Speed of light basic; no Irreleva to most problems
of years by “big bang” short-time teory concei- and highly speculative and
starting assumption vable adaptible
9. Meteorite ages Correspond through chemo- Meteorites are solar system Meteori recently exploded
physical measures with and resemble primal Earth and acquire false ages like
age of Earth material III
9
10. Solar cycles Periodicities of sun-spots re- Periodicities vary but pro- Periodicities are reasonable if
flected in natural periods bably not much experienced, but radical
on Earth departures probably over
thousands of years
11. Star movement “Fixed” stars give perfect Where possible event can Star movements are anciently
intervals for retrotiming be tied to fixed stars implicated in planetary
movements
12. Planet and cometary A position today gives a re- No force disturbs much the Planets and comets have bemovement
liable position through the orbits of planets haved changeably in recent
ages times
13. Cf. IV with I, III, V Earth-other planet compari- Each planet has its own in- All planets bear the marks of
sons and correlations of dividual unaffected exis- their experiences with other
events and causes tence planets
14. Succession and beha- Planet-associated divinities Mythological materials are Mythology permits increasingly
viors of divinities are function of time when superstitions, gibberish; un- exact and reliable correlaplanets
active proven correlations tions; V.1.-2
10
V. Cultural Measures
1. Mythological time Sublimated and fantastic Pure fantasy, primitive, Simplified hidden but true
sequences and/or indecipherable messages, sometimes
decipherable
2. Legendary time Collectively affirmed fixed Same but more intelligible Same but sometimes clear and
events and sequences accurate
3. Anniversaries Asserted or evident Random Celebrations or Celebrations of single or psytemporal
fixation of based upon eternal recur- chically combined natural
intensive event of typerences events
IV.-14,V.1 -2 -10
4. Calendars Pre-historical and Often confused but OK if Rarely confused; reflect difhistorical
systems of in line with present time ferent times; decipherable
time reckoning
5. Mechanical clocks Devices, sundials, shadow Unintelligible if not in keep- Correct “fossils” of different
sticks, and process flows ing with present time time-periods
calibrated to time
6. Archaeological loca- Cultural data arranged by Usually human-caused or Often radical changes and hiation
and succession 1.3, development stages, normal present forces tuses catastrophically caused
and causes of hiatuses
11
7. Timed records. Reports of experiences, suc- Often inept, primitive, con- Usually correct but mistakenly
cessive events, or astrology flicting with true time edited or for extinct timeperiods
8. Memorial generations. Oral long-time transmission Unreliable; too many breaks Highly disciplined, sometimes
plus V.-1, 2, One M.G. and much fantasy valid and reliable
= 50 year
9. Cycles of Ages. Theories of successive ages Mythical and fantastic; Plots main lines of natural of
chaos and creation superstitious cultural history; fragmentary
10. Cross-cultural Synchronization by common Independent invention or Traumatic independent invention co-
experience experiences of culture diffusion and coercive diffusion
items of catastrophism

Note that you can find this Figure, and the Chapter it is from, here: http://www.grazian-archive.com/quantavolution/QUANTAVOL/cc_docs/cc_2.pdf
___________________________________________________________________________________________
User avatar
jone dae
 
Posts: 95
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2012 8:47 am
Location: Los Angeles

Re: C14 dating.

Unread postby jone dae » Sun Mar 03, 2013 5:55 pm

So, again, please bear with some of the misaligned text in the original. Here is that Figure 6 again...

(The website was supposed to have attached the pdf here....)
(Ok, found out that the website doesn't allow pdfs to be uploaded. That is kind of an astounding mistake! I wonder how many dozens of other people have been surprised by that stupidity.)


Incredible! Bizarre! The extension .txt (text) is also not allowed. And, to complete the embarrasing stupidity of the site designers, the extension .htm is also not allowed!!

That's like saying, you can eat any food you want to, as long as it is not meat, vegetables, or fruit!

Jone.
P.S. Just look here below until the thunderbolts forum is able to join the rest of us in the 21st century (i.e. the website designers).
http://www.grazian-archive.com/quantavolution/QuantaHTML/vol_03/chaos_creation_03.htm
http://www.grazian-archive.com/quantavolution/QUANTAVOL/cc_docs/cc_2.pdf
User avatar
jone dae
 
Posts: 95
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2012 8:47 am
Location: Los Angeles

Re: C14 dating.

Unread postby jone dae » Sun Mar 03, 2013 6:19 pm

You see, I want Dr. De Grazia's discussion to appear here, so that it will stimulate our discussion, and so that this forum will resume. I won't post the entire chapter, Collapsing Tests Of Time, since it is 79 (pdf) pages long. However, here are a few of the pages about radiochronology. I also want everyone to note, that it is the popular culture that will only pay attention to the new, that says that only novelty is good, not the scholarly or academic culture. This is a very American trait, and we have succeeded in exporting it to most of the world, during the past 50 years. We, though, in the academic, research, and scholarly subcultures, know that the importance of a published, or even unpublished work, is its contents first, not its date of publication. That is why Dr. De Grazia is ignored in the websites, blogs, and forums that are part of the popular culture, the general American culture that comprises 99% of the users of the Web. I also note further that these works by De Grazia, who, when he was young, was a Velikovsky protege, published these works in the 1980s, and that very little has occurred in science or been published since then, which is new, regarding the topics and subjects that he writes about. Most of what is new in those areas, can be found, or links to it found, in this forum!
So, and excerpt from that Chapter follows here:
Jone Dae


RADIODATING
William Thomson (Lord Kelvin, 1824-1907) estimated in 1899
that the Earth might be no older than 24 million years if its
matter were chemically inert and its heat only the primordial
remnant. Other scientists disagreed, opting for longer durations
to accomplish evolutionary processes.
How uncertain were the stratigraphic estimates of time that
geologists relied upon before new radiometric techniques came
into use a generation ago is revealed in their quick surrender to
radiometry: it is common joke that the earth has aged a billion
years per decade for several decades, all owing to new tests of
time by radiochronometry [30].
Certain elements, such as potassium-40 and uranium-238, which
are to be found in rocks of the crust of the Earth, especially at or
near surface levels, are radioactive. They are sometimes called
“parent elements” insofar as they decay into “daughter”
elements by giving up electrons or by other means [31]. They
began their decay as soon as they were formed. One calculates
their life-span by figuring backwards from today’s rate of decay
as witnessed in a sample of the element. A rock matrix
presumably will contain the parent element and the daughter
element in proportion to its age, unless it had undergone some
exceptional experience. The dozen or so transformations used
for dating purposes include uranium-238 decaying into lead-206,
of potassium-40 decaying into argon-40, and of rubidium-87
decaying into strontium-87 [32].
None of these methods is useful directly for the period since
14,000 B.P. because the decay into daughter elements is too
slow to detect over the short time. However, radiodating
challenges our model of quantavolution indirectly when it
produces long-term dates where short-term dates are expected.
For example if, by potassium-40 argon-40 dating, the ocean floor
appears to be 100 to 200 million years old, then it cannot have
been formed between 13,000 B.P. and 9,000 B.P. Also, when
igneous rocks associated with hominid bones of the Olduvai
gorge, dated by the same technique, produce an age of about
1.75 million years, then the bones cannot be of the holocene
epoch.
Major problems occur with radiodating. One is in the setting of a
rate of decay and therefore setting a date for “time zero” within
a reasonable margin of error. Regarding the “time zero”
problem, the radio “clocks” work on vast ages, from one billion
to five billion years of age. Adjustments in the so-called decay
constant may move all tested rocks up and down the time scale
by many millions of years. Although such adjustment never
approach a short-term position, they cause doubts as to whether
there is in fact a constant rate of decay to be discovered.
A second kind of difficulty deals with high-energy events.
Radio-chemical methods of determining pre-historic age are
extensions of the uniformitarian premise that the chosen
chemical elements have remained unchanged in a closed system,
save for the decay process, since the clock started to tick. They
assume that nothing would affect the parent or daughter element,
apart from the expected normal decay from one to the other;
nothing could tamper with the clock. Recent studies cast doubt
upon this theory; high forces can break and enter the clock.
The concept of “half-life” is used in radioactive decay time
measurements. The half-life of an aggregate of an element is the
length of time required for half the atoms of the aggregate to
decay into the new element. The half-life of uranium-238 is 4.5
billion years, calculated backwards from presents rates of decay.
Can the process of decay be so regular [33] ? Decay is the
losing of an electron from an atom that is unstable; it therefore
amounts to a transmutation. The occasion of the decay is a force.
The force is another particle from another statistical aggregate.
This force is regularly and randomly applied to the “A”
aggregate causing a regular rate of loss. Each “A” atom has an
equal chance of being hit in the bombardment. Hence whatever
affects the bombarding aggregate will affect the rate of decay of
“A”.
And all “A’s” may not be identical. Some “A’s” may be “harder
to hit,” “resist cleavage,” or “repel the projectiles.” Still, as an
aggregate, ”A” might respond uniformly to the force causing is
transmutation.
Radiation physicist H.C. Dudley [34] has insisted that the
equations describing radioactive decay rates were crudely
derived long ago: “Bluntly, they are incorrect; but they
nonetheless appear in our latest textbooks...Studies have varied
the decay characteristics of 12 other radionuclides [besides 7Be
and 90Nb] with changes in the energy state of the orbital
electrons; by pressure, temperature, electric and magnetic fields,
stress in molecular layers etc.,” citing G. T. Emery.
Dudley further asserts that in certain cases, the “decay event A
is causally related to decay event B occurring later, such that the
time distributions of all decay events were no longer truly
random, as required by current theory. There appears to be a
chain type reaction operating...similar to that observed in
neutron induced sustained nuclear fission,” here citing chemists
J. L. Anderson and G. W. Spangler.
Dudley asks for the incorporating in decay theory of “the energy
state of the entire atom [not just the nucleus] and on parameters
of interaction with an energy-rich subquantic medium.”
The work of Anderson Spangler and Dudley implies this for
revolutionary primevalogy: decay rates for radioactive elements
are dependent upon high-energy forces in the environment, and
may be varied little or much. Radioactive decay can be
compared with chain reactions in nuclear fission. Hence, at
certain points in time, especially when the phenomenon of the
catastrophic tube occurred, time pressures (based on today’s
retrojections) would have been instantly and completely
disrupted.
RADIATION TURBULENCE
We are conjecturing further, here, that major disturbances in the
parent-daughter relationship may occur as a result of radiation
storms and typhonic impact explosions. Lesser and more
localized in effect, and often inter-connected with radiation
storms are jovian bolts, phaetonic atmospheric penetration,
titanic large body encounters, and dense material fall-outs. These
operate as follows:
Cosmic radiation consists of high-energy particles that bombard
the earth sufficiently at the present time to permit the presence in
the atmosphere of atoms of all chemical elements. Both the
particles striking earth and the transmutations of particles are
varied. When, according to quantavolutionary theory, agemaking
and age-breaking episodes occurred, the earth passed
near to heavily radiating bodies and was also subjected to heavy
radiation storms from a distance. In fact, every change in the
earth’s atmosphere lessened or increased the reception of
radiation: the cloud canopies, the lowering or dropping of
canopies, the rising of exploded vapors, the destruction of
biospheres and the loss or gain of atmosphere from comets,
meteors and planets.
In all of this, the parent and daughter elements involved in radio
clocks have experienced a turbulent history. No pair of elements
can be granted to have remained locked in their crystallized rock
interior since the beginning of its time. There is no way of
commencing the history of potassium and argon at the bottom of
the sea. The bottom formed in a turbulent atmosphere and
hydrosphere, first wet, then drowned shallowly. then deeply
submerged but all the while actively spreading. The waters that
poured in came directly from the skies, through skies via the sea
and earth evaporation, and through runoffs loaded with detritus.
Under such circumstances the clocks might be deemed invalid.
They were set wrongly to begin with. They have maintained a
semblance of agreement of very old ages by first of all having
had similar recent experiences within their rocks, and through
laboratory fudging of tests and samples back and forth.
Yet even “normal” experience of today’s solar system presents a
severe problem. Nitrogen contained in air and in radioactive
mineral undergoes a considerable transmutation of isotropic
elements. Lead undergoes the same. The cause is neutronpromoted
transmutations. As a result, the decay process of
uranium into lead is paralleled by neutron-to-lead activity. When
as in certain Katanga and Canadian ore bodies, a neutronpromoted
corrective factor is introduced into the uranium-to-lead
decay process, the daughter element that isowed to uranium
decay is so reduced as to produce a zero age result [35].
This kind of problem is rendered even more difficult under
solarian conditions by problems of selecting and sampling rocks,
by the fluxing and painting of the surfaces of rocks where trace
elements aggregate, and by the need to transfer (with dubious
validity) the findings of a test in one part of the lithosphere to
conclusions about tests in other parts.
Problems of leaching and fluxing are severe. Rivers carry an
estimated average of 6 x 1010 grams per year of uranium down
to the oceans. If the lead is left behind in the rocks this escaping
uranium is effectively turning back the clock [36]. Parents are
leaving their daughters, and the remaining parents are being
charged with their existence. The amount of uranium in the
ocean, moreover, is so small (10 to the 17the power grams) as to
have been produced even under non-exponential solarian
conditions within about 10 million years. With quantavolutionary
theory, the exponential rate of deposit would eradicate even this
time calculation.
Helium in the atmosphere is originated radioactively from the
uranium and thorium in the lithosphere and from cosmic rays
from the galaxy and beyond. Conventional ages of the
lithosphere require that 1020 grams of helium should have been
released into the atmosphere whereupon some of it would
escape into outer space. However, the rate of escape is too slow
under solarian conditions to explain why so little helium exists in
the atmosphere. Given the amount of helium present there, it has
been calculated that the age of the atmosphere must be only
12,000 years [37]. That is, some 12,000 years ago, the
atmosphere was reconstituted.
Radioactivity was discovered a century ago but time-measures
of radioactivity are largely a post-World War II development.
Despite the shortness of its life, changes in the field have been
numerous and radical. Its leaders turn quickly in new directions
whenever problems are encountered, introducing new half-lives,
slicing experimental rocks differently, and giving their favor now
to one, and again to another technique.
POTASSIUM-ARGON DATING
Potassium-argon dating has become highly favored recently, for
reasons too byzantine to develop here. For, the criticisms that
can be addressed to uranium-lead dating hold also against
40K/40A dating. Indeed, argon (one of the “noble gases” whose
exclusiveness or slipperiness gave them their name) is generally
to be suspected of vagrancy. Also, the stability of potassium is in
question. “Potassium can be made to diverge widely form
conventional abundance by countercurrent
electromigration.”[38]
Argon-40 will be present in a rock if potassium-40 is present and
has had time to decay. Only igneous, and certain types of oncemelted
metamorphic rock, can be tested. Sediments cannot. The
half-life of 40K is so long (1.3 billion years for half the decay to
occur) that almost no argon-40 is to be found in a young rock,
and therefore tests are not yet considered valid for less than
100,000 years.
Dates produced by related tests are often discordant. Material
taken from the Salt Lake Crater on Oahu, Hawaii, dated from
200 to 3,300 million years [39]; the Moon has been dated as
older than the universe [40]; and 200-year old lavas, that should
show zero Argon, produced enough to allow 12 and 20 millionyear
old dates at Kilauea, Hawaii [41]. I shall only mention that,
under such circumstances, in other cases, the problems of full
and open reporting may become serious in the field of
chronometric science; as in public affairs, there arises a
temptation to dismiss, “fudge” or even conceal some of the
evidence [42].
Argon, like uranium and radioactive trace elements generally,
tends to rise to the surface of the Earth. Hence surface rocks
(and these include all that have been measured) will be high in
argon content. Argon also can be infused into hot rocks from the
air and kept there as the rocks cool. This could have happened to
Earth if Mars, thought now to be rich in atmospheric argon,
encountered Earth 2,700 years ago; the same Martian argon may
be what is making Moon samples, so young in some respects, so
old by 40K - 40A dating [43]. The U.S. Venus probe of 1978
found astonishing quantities of argon-36 and possibly argon-40
in the burning atmosphere.
Argon, being “exclusive,” “slippery,” and “noble,” leaks. It
escapes into the atmosphere; it flows horizontally. It prefers
rocks of certain types to other rocks. On the Island of Naxos,
Greece, Poul Andriessen found side by side metamorphic rocks
which, in tests performed in his Dutch laboratory, produced ages
of 5 to 15 million, and of 200 million years (amphibolite
ultrabasic rock) [44]. Australian tektites have given 700,000 to
860,000 years by the 40K - 40A method in 7 to 20 thousandyear-
old strata [45].
Funkhauser and Naughton, faced by the Hawaiian incongruities,
speculated that excess argon could be held in crystal
irregularities and imperfections such as grain boundaries and
dislocations in the rocks. This likely theory would appear to
throw the K-A ratio upon the mercy of petrology rather than
chronology.
Granted argon is more abundant in rocks nearer the surface, a
lava flow will erupt melted surface rock first, than lower rock,
then still lower rock. This may falsely date a set of lavas,
although the law of superposition is correct. As the law
demands, the strata of lava on top will be younger (and hold less
argon) than the strata below (with more argon); moreover all will
be very old for the reasons given above. As matters stand, it
would be a grave risk for geology to rearrange the phanerozoic
scale according to 40K - 40A dating principles.
(excerpt from Chapter 3, Collapsing Tests Of Time, from Chaos and Creation)
User avatar
jone dae
 
Posts: 95
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2012 8:47 am
Location: Los Angeles

Re: C14 dating.

Unread postby Lloyd » Mon Mar 04, 2013 6:15 pm

I like Walter Brown's info on dating methods at http://creationscience.com. Dating is discussed at these locations there: https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3A ... =firefox-a
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4317
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: C14 dating.

Unread postby jone dae » Tue Mar 05, 2013 6:09 pm

@Lloyd,
Thanks for those links. I'll be taking a look at that today. It is good to see activity on this forum. Like so many of the other forums on this site, this is information that needs to be made available to high school, college, and university students, if not taught to them. And therefore it must be made available to their instructors, as well, or taught to them. I have found only a few other instructors, on campuses other than U. of Chicago, who are teaching De Grazia's Quantavolution. I wonder if there isn't a way for us to re-post these comments on a website, that academic instructors blog on.
JD.
User avatar
jone dae
 
Posts: 95
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2012 8:47 am
Location: Los Angeles

Re: C14 dating.

Unread postby jone dae » Tue Mar 05, 2013 6:15 pm

@Lloyd,
I want to add that, Prof. De Grazia published the first account of scientific creation, that is scientific, shows how humans were created, and employs the information about the effects on life on earth that the EU model describes! Perhaps one of us could mention that to whomever made that "scientific creation" website.
If you're curious, his account is in Homo Schizo I, http://www.grazian-archive.com/quantavolution/QUANTAVOL/hs1_docs/hs1_1.pdf. BTW you can download those for free, in pdf, text, or HTML formats. (I'm into freedom of information, here as applied to scholarly and academic publications.)
JD
User avatar
jone dae
 
Posts: 95
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2012 8:47 am
Location: Los Angeles

Re: C14 dating.

Unread postby Lloyd » Wed Mar 06, 2013 10:01 am

Jone, if you'd like to help compile useful data or source links etc on this or similar topics, Charles' site has good places to do that, such as here, http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=4741-4742-7455.4742-7455, where anyone can start a forum on such topics or just post material there, either individually or in group efforts.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4317
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: C14 dating.

Unread postby jone dae » Mon Mar 18, 2013 4:45 pm

Great; thank you for the link, Lloyd. The site doesn't seem very active right now, but we'll see. But I do like to see the activity on the Thunderbolts forums. Of course, you are welcome to post or comment on my already existing blog site, jonedae.wordpress.com . Lot of interesting links for you there.
JD
User avatar
jone dae
 
Posts: 95
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2012 8:47 am
Location: Los Angeles

Re: C14 dating.

Unread postby jone dae » Mon Mar 18, 2013 4:48 pm

Well, and someone has put some work into making the site clean, easy to read, and easy to use. -Do you blog there, Lloyd?

JD
User avatar
jone dae
 
Posts: 95
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2012 8:47 am
Location: Los Angeles

Re: C14 dating.

Unread postby 4realScience » Sat Apr 06, 2013 5:40 pm

Lloyd, I admit my error on C14 dating,

I posted a message where I said I believed C14 dating was cross confirmed by ice cores and tree rings. I take that back now that I have seen the data on the Lost Squadron of the P-38 WWII fighters found under the ice in Greenland. This find falsifies all ice core data, doesn't it? So the claims made that ice cores and tree rings correspond must be wrong.

Now I no longer trust any of these dating methods.

Reader, if you are not aware of the P-38s data just do a Google query like this:
p-38 lost squadron ice cores

What we find is that a squadron WWII airplanes were abandoned in Greenland in the 1940s. They have recently been found beneath many thousands of ice layers at about 268 feet depth in the ice. This totally falsifies the theories of ice core dating, which says the planes are thousands of years old.

I stand corrected.
4realScience
 
Posts: 97
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:20 pm

Re: C14 dating.

Unread postby Lloyd » Sat Apr 06, 2013 6:20 pm

4Real said: This find falsifies all ice core data, doesn't it? So the claims made that ice cores and tree rings correspond must be wrong. Now I no longer trust any of these dating methods.

It may be possible to get some general time frame agreement among such dating methods, but it's much more complicated than what the science media and major media pretend.

Catastrophists have discussed most dating methods since at least the 1970s, when I first started reading such discussions. Right away, like in Talbott's Pensee' magazine etc, they pointed out that tree ring thicknesses vary considerably even in nearby locations. For example, if a tree grows in a valley, its rings will differ much from one that grows high on a hillside. A drought will cause poor ring growth on the hillside, while the one in the valley will have normal good growth.

It's a bit like finger-printing though. If you get enough microscopic details, you can find correlations among methods that are more reliable. I heard that volcanoes tend to have unique "fingerprints" in the form of element and maybe isotope abundances, which means the percent of each element or isotope found at a location. Volcanic eruptions that span the globe then are likely to be detectable worldwide, wherever that debris has not been eroded away too much. That's like smearing fingerprints. As long as fingerprints aren't smeared or abraded too much, they'll be very reliable. The Santorini volcanic eruption is said to have a fingerprint on land, maybe on seafloors, and also in the ice sheet cores. So those datings may be fairly accurate.

However, it's wrong for conventional science to assume that only one layer of snow was always deposited on the ice sheets each year and that none of the layers melted. Catastrophism finds that during global cataclysms unusually heavy snow on ice sheets, as well as flooding over large areas, and in some places drought, and other disasters likely occurred. This means that much of the ice sheets may have been deposited in very short time periods either once or a number of times.

Since the global cataclysms seem to have ended about 4,500 to 5,000 years ago, dating after that is likely to be more reliable than before that. I heard yesterday that stone henge was C-14 dated to 4,500 years BP and a second nearby wood henge recently found dates to the same time. So those structures apparently were built right after the cataclysms ended, although C-14 dating can be off normally by a few hundred years. In some cases it can be more off.

Conventional science has a habit of Jumping to Conclusions, which is totally unscientific. That's corruption in science that allows that. The more forensic methods etc are adapted, the more accurate dating methods can become. Scott Wolter claims to be a forensic geologist and his findings are shown on a tv show, called America Unearthed, I think. He's finding quite a bit of evidence of Europeans in America long before Columbus. The Great Lakes area was apparently mined for copper by Europeans 3,500 years ago, which produced the Bronze Age. So interesting findings are always coming along.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4317
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: C14 dating.

Unread postby JouniJokela » Wed Mar 30, 2016 1:48 am

Another highly interesting chain.

I already note how the C14 dating is shot down by many supporting facts, but I want to add my own observation;
The radioactive half-life is not a constant. It's already observed fact that Radon-222 exhibit large 4% peak-to-peak seasonal variations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_decay#Changing_decay_rates

As long as the radioactive decay process is not fully understood, it's pretty much impossible to make any accurate historical dating with it.
JouniJokela
 
Posts: 93
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2016 6:34 pm
Location: Swiss

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe - Planetary Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests