analyzing the dating systems

[KerrMetric]

you haven't noticed? libby and about every other scientist have noted that c-14 decays at a constant rate but with each subsequent half-life, that rate slows by 50% and i cannot find any explanation for that anomaly.

there is no reason for that change in rate. if the decay rate is constant then c-14 should decay within 11,000 years +/-.

according to Libby, 50% of c-14 decays in the first 5-6,000 years +/- then the next 5-6,000 +/- 50% of the remaining c-14 decays. but that translates into only 25% of the original amount which means the decay rate has slowed and no one explains it.

so i am and have been searching for libby's notes on the subject to verify what he claimed and see how he addresses this change.

You need to stop right now and go back and edit your posts - because you are about to get totally embarrassed. Even some of the other creationists on here will realise the basic error you are making.

Hint:

The rate is constant. You are making a freshman high school (or earlier) level error.



ps

I think I have been very kind and considerate in this post.

 

[random_guy]

KerrMetric:

Awesome catch, I didn't even notice that mistake.

archaeologist:

I'm with KerrMetric on this one. You're making a very very bad math mistake right now that almost any high school student that's used rates will recognize, and every single calculus student will recognize (if they did well in class).

You do remember P(t) = P(0)e^(rt), right?

If not, I'll explain. This isn't just a bias or assumptions, this is mathematics, and there are right and wrong answers, and right now, you're giving a very wrong answer.

 

[KerrMetric]

I've been banging this drum for years. This is the level of incompetency you get when people dabble in subjects they have no ability or experience in. You really cannot have much progress when mistakes are made at this level.


Now let's see if any of the other creationists on here will step up to correct archeologist or will they lay down in the weeds letting the silliness continue.

 

[random_guy]

I've been banging this drum for years. This is the level of incompetency you get when people dabble in subjects they have no ability or experience in. You really cannot have much progress when mistakes are made at this level.

I know, and it really irks me since I've taken the time to study a little of each material. I'm sure there's a lot of Creationists that has spent more time studying than me, but it's all for naught because their references are all wrong. It makes me sad to see that much time wasted, studying why evolution is false when the material doesn't even properly define evolution.

archaeologist:
I tutor mathematics, so I'll help explain why the rate is constant. The formula for decay (as well as interest) is

P(t) = P(0) exp(r*t)
where P(t) is material at time t, P(0) is initial amount, exp is the exponential function, r is the rate, and t is time.

Let's assume you have a material with a half life of c years. That means in c years, half of the material will be gone. Let's say you start off with x amount, then after c years, you would have 1/2 x, right? Just half of the material left. It doesn't matter what c and x are, just assume they can be any constant. To solve for r, just plug in the what we know:

1/2 x = x exp(r*c) =>
1/2 = exp(r*c) => (take natural log of both sides, if you don't know what that is, feel free to ask)
ln(1/2) = r*c =>
r = ln(1/2)/c

Now, let's solve for the rate after 2c years, at which there should be 1/4x material left:

1/4 x = x exp(r*2c)

I'll let the rest to you as an exercise. Solve for r and see if they match up.

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

Perhaps archaeologist is not a real archaeologist.

 

[Deamiter]

I'd like to try at an easily understandable explanation too.

Half-life is the time it takes for half the number of atoms to decay. So after one half-life only half the atoms remain. Because of the nature of decay, every atom has an equal chance of decaying at any one time. So in the second half-life, only half of the REMAINING atoms decay.

Because it's always half in the same amount of time, the rate stays the same. It's only the number of atoms that decays in a halflife that changes.

So the rate stays the same, only the number of atoms that decay in the half-life that changes. This might be hard to understand, but it is absolutely predicted by the nature of the probability an atom decays during any particular period.

It's a bit hard to explain without understanding exactly what you're not getting about it, but I'd suggest finding somebody who passed a physics class in your church and going through their physics text with them.

 

[pgp_protector]

Tagging another thread to watch.

 

[archaeologist]

the original post stated, do not address me, stick to the topic,you do not know why i am presenting this situation nor do you know how much i know so stop insulting me, <staff edit>

so far the equations given do not explain the change in decay (or the number of c-14 atoms that decay)

P(t) = P(0) exp(r*t)
where P(t) is material at time t, P(0) is initial amount, exp is the exponential function, r is the rate, and t is time

this equation is already based upon one assumption, an one unknowable quantity-- initial amount.

1/2 x = x exp(r*c) =>
1/2 = exp(r*c) => (take natural log of both sides, if you don't know what that is, feel free to ask)
ln(1/2) = r*c =>
r = ln(1/2)/c

this equation may explain the first half-life but where is the reasoning to automatically plug in 1/4 for the next equation.

1/4 x = x exp(r*2c)

what evidence is used to obtain that figure?

It's a bit hard to explain without understanding exactly what you're not getting about it

just discussing dating systems, it would help if those who side with evolution would post links to support their equatins and applications of same.

evolutinists rely on these systems so they shoul dbe able to provide a very clear picture.

 

[birdan]

Archie,
Maybe this will help in the context of dating techniques ...

Say you have a radioactive material with a half life of 10,000 years. After 10,000 years you will have 1/2 of the original material and 1/2 of the "daughter" material. With the original material on hand at that point, another 10,000 years and you will have 1/4 of the original material and 3/4 of the "daughter" material. Then 1/8, 1/16, etc.
So, in the above example, if you find a ratio of 1/8 to 7/8, you know the sample is three half-lifes old - 30,000 years.

Note that the original material is always decaying at the same rate: at any point in time, for the quantity of original material on hand, it will take 10,000 years for 1/2 of that to decay into the daughter material.

Hope that helps.

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

the original post stated, do not address me, stick to the topic,you do not know why i am presenting this situation nor do you know how much i know so stop insulting me, .

so far the equations given do not explain the change in decay (or the number of c-14 atoms that decay)



this equation is already based upon one assumption, an one unknowable quantity-- initial amount.



this equation may explain the first half-life but where is the reasoning to automatically plug in 1/4 for the next equation.



what evidence is used to obtain that figure?



just discussing dating systems, it would help if those who side with evolution would post links to support their equatins and applications of same.

evolutinists rely on these systems so they shoul dbe able to provide a very clear picture.

If this is the way you are approaching your research into the flaws of the C-14 dating system the results could be most interesting.

 

[metherion]

Anywho, back to the dating systems.

The reason we use 1/4 is because 1/4 is half of 1/2. Since a half-life is the time it takes for half the material to decay, once you pass 1 half-life, only the original material still remaining decays. The 'daughter' material does not contribute to the amount of the measured material because it is no longer the measured material.
So, half of the remaining stuff will decay. Half of half is a quarter; hence, after 2 half-lives 1/4 the material will remain instead of nothing. The original parameter, the amount of radioactive material, has changed.

if those who side with evolution would post links to support their equatins and applications of same.

evolutinists rely on these systems

Actually, this is nuclear physics, not evolution.

Metherion

 

[archaeologist]

Archie,
Maybe this will help in the context of dating techniques ...

Say you have a radioactive material with a half life of 10,000 years. After 10,000 years you will have 1/2 of the original material and 1/2 of the "daughter" material. With the original material on hand at that point, another 10,000 years and you will have 1/4 of the original material and 3/4 of the "daughter" material. Then 1/8, 1/16, etc.
So, in the above example, if you find a ratio of 1/8 to 7/8, you know the sample is three half-lifes old - 30,000 years.

Note that the original material is always decaying at the same rate: at any point in time, for the quantity of original material on hand, it will take 10,000 years for 1/2 of that to decay into the daughter material.

Hope that helps.

no as you have only stated the obvious which i have already studied in graduate school. again, do not address me deal with the systems, go deeper. what you said does not explain the change but just ackowledges what everyone already knows.

here is this:

Each radionuclide decays at its own unique rate which cannot be altered by any chemical or physical process

(by the way, they give a different equation at this web site:

http://www.ndt-ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/Radiography/Physics/carbondating.htm

Exponential Decay Formula: A = A0* 2^(-t/k)

then there is this:

Uncertainty in Carbon Dating
As mentioned above, there is significant uncertainty in carbon dating. There are several variables that contribute to this uncertainty. First, as mentioned previously, the proportions of C-14 in the atmosphere in historic times is unknown. The C-14:C-12 atmospheric ratio is known to vary over time and<FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> it is not at all certain that the curve is “well behaved.”

 

[archaeologist]

The reason we use 1/4 is because 1/4 is half of 1/2. Since a half-life is the time it takes for half the material to decay, once you pass 1 half-life, only the original material still remaining decays

still doesn't account for or explain why the atoms decaying 'slow down'. i am well aware of the above point, not my focus in bringing this up.

if 50% decay in the first half life, where does the change take place where only 25% 'disappear' in the second.

so far you have only told me what i already know, let's see if you can tell me something i don't.

 

[pgp_protector]

still doesn't account for or explain why the atoms decaying 'slow down'. i am well aware of the above point, not my focus in bringing this up.

if 50% decay in the first half life, where does the change take place where only 25% 'disappear' in the second.

so far you have only told me what i already know, let's see if you can tell me something i don't.

If %50 is gone in the first x time, please tell us what is left ?, and given that in the next x time %50 of what is left will decay, how much is that ?

 

[KerrMetric]

nor do you know how much i know.

Yes we do. You made a complete boneheaded error earlier which shows you just don't know anything about this topic.

 

[KerrMetric]

if 50% decay in the first half life, where does the change take place where only 25% 'disappear' in the second.

so far you have only told me what i already know, let's see if you can tell me something i don't.

STOP the MADNESS.

Are you really being this @^@@ or are you a creationist parody act?

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

STOP the MADNESS.

Are you really being this @^@@ or are you a creationist parody act?

Worrying, isn't it? I think I lean towards the latter.

 

[metherion]

Disintegrations spontaneously happen. All atoms in a particular system (of the same material) have the same chance to disintegrate at any given time. However, as fewer atoms are left with the same chance to disintegrate, the disintegration necessary slows down. However, since the chance to disintegrate is constant, the rate will stay the same relative to the total number of atoms.

Metherion

edit:

Believe it or not, this is actually the same process used to determine the projected failure of parts in factories and whatnot. Each bolt has a projected lifespan of X, which translates into a failure rate of Y, which after some math revails that afte Z time 50% of the bolts will have failed.

That type of thing.

 

[Deamiter]

still doesn't account for or explain why the atoms decaying 'slow down'. i am well aware of the above point, not my focus in bringing this up.

if 50% decay in the first half life, where does the change take place where only 25% 'disappear' in the second.

so far you have only told me what i already know, let's see if you can tell me something i don't.

Archaeologist -- the percentage of atoms that decay in a period of time has nothing to do with the amount of atoms that exist.

In a single half-life, every single atom has a 50% chance of decaying. Half of them will decay and half won't. Now in two half-lives, you don't reach a 100% chance of decaying. During the first half-life, each atom has a 50% chance of decaying. During the second half-life each atom has a 50% chance of decaying, but since there are fewer atoms, fewer will decay.

It's like you have kids running around popping balloons in a park and during each minute, 50% of the kids will find a balloon and then run crying to their mother. You'll get a whole lot of pops right away, but as fewer and fewer kids are left searching, they'll pop fewer and fewer balloons during each minute. This is an accurate description of what is OBSERVED in radioactive decay -- they don't set out to all decay by a set point, in each amount of time, a PERCENTAGE (not a fixed number) of the existing atoms will decay.

Again, this isn't just making stuff up, it's what is observed. For the record, the equation you cited is equivalent to the equations cited earlier in the thread -- they're just formed differently. And both forms of the equation will show you that decay is not linear, it's exponential. If you plug one halflife into either equation, you'll get 50% remaining. If you plug TWO halflives into the equation, you'll get 25% remaining. That's what's observed so that's what the equations used to model our observation are designed to show.

 

[KerrMetric]

archeologist loves the report button. Pity he isn't loving basic mathematics as much.

This error is embarrassing after about 8 posts explaining this.