juvenissun
... and God saw that it was good.
- Apr 5, 2007
- 25,452
- 805
- 73
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
Yes. That is why I do not like the carbon dating system as much.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Yes. That is why I do not like the carbon dating system as much.Don't forget we are dealing with two distinct systems in carbon dating, one is atmospheric carbon which could quite happily reach equilibrium and not effect carbon dating, the other is the carbon in the sample which stopped taking up atmospheric carbon when it died. From then its carbon does change in one direction.
That is why we must first calibrate the tests. If the C14/C12 ratio has always been constant then calibration would be unnecessary, to an extent.This assumption is based on the fairly well established fact that most c14 is produced by solar radiation, and the reasonable assumption that there have never been any very large variations in the amount of radiation produced by the sun. These facts make the assumption seem reasonable. But this logic neglects a very real possibility.
Actually we can determine that the Solar system is moving. The Voyager space probes are currently measuring the termination shock, Voyager 2 however entered the shock a billion miles before Voyager 1 therefore the interstellar medium is exerting more pressure in that region of space and the system is moving.There is no way to prove that as our solar system moves through space, it has never passed through a cloud or interstellar dust. We know that such clouds exist, and we also know that if they are distant from any star, we cannot see them.
The solar wind would have prevented any of the gasses from reaching the inner solar system. Even then the composition of nebulae is almost exclusively hydrogen and helium.If our planet passed through such a cloud at any time on the past, the production rate of c14 would have been greatly reduced for as long as it took to pass through the cloud. This would have made all objects from that time seem very much older than they really were.
There is a 10% error? So the real age would be between 105% and 95% of the result that our tests give us.Incidentally, carbon dating and tree ring dating systematically yield results about 10% different at the age limit of tree ring dating, which is ---- wonder of wonders ---- about six thousand years!
Sorry, but this is quite wrong -- have you been reading this thread? That carbon 14 production is more or less constant is a conclusion drawn from the evidence, not an assumption. The conclusion has been reached by comparing C-14 dates with those obtained by independent methods.This is based upon an unprovable assumption that the production rate of c14 is "more or less constant."
Calculations, please: how dense a cloud would be required to greatly reduce carbon-14 production? And how would this effect not be seen when calibrating the system?This assumption is based on the fairly well established fact that most c14 is produced by solar radiation, and the reasonable assumption that there have never been any very large variations in the amount of radiation produced by the sun. These facts make the assumption seem reasonable. But this logic neglects a very real possibility.
There is no way to prove that as our solar system moves through space, it has never passed through a cloud or interstellar dust. We know that such clouds exist, and we also know that if they are distant from any star, we cannot see them.
If our planet passed through such a cloud at any time on the past, the production rate of c14 would have been greatly reduced for as long as it took to pass through the cloud. This would have made all objects from that time seem very much older than they really were.
Incidentally, carbon dating and tree ring dating systematically yield results about 10% different at the age limit of tree ring dating, which is ---- wonder of wonders ---- about six thousand years!
This is a little off topic, but this is fascinating! I have a question though, didn't we already know we were moving? I mean I thought galaxies spin, and we're in the Milky Way Galaxy, and the Milky Way Galaxy is spinning, and therefore, we are moving in orbit around the center of our galaxy. Right? Or is there additional movement you're referring to? Or are you saying now we can measure how much we're moving? What new information exactly have we gained from this?...
Actually we can determine that the Solar system is moving. The Voyager space probes are currently measuring the termination shock, Voyager 2 however entered the shock a billion miles before Voyager 1 therefore the interstellar medium is exerting more pressure in that region of space and the system is moving.
...
Sorry, but this is quite wrong -- have you been reading this thread? That carbon 14 production is more or less constant is a conclusion drawn from the evidence, not an assumption. The conclusion has been reached by comparing C-14 dates with those obtained by independent methods.
Calculations, please: how dense a cloud would be required to greatly reduce carbon-14 production? And how would this effect not be seen when calibrating the system?
We have known for hundreds of years that stars move from comparing star charts thousands of years ago to those that we see today, I would have been logical to assume that the sun too moved at that point. Up until the late 19th century, however we really did not know what was beyond our galaxy or really even the shape of it so I do not believe that anyone actually thought the sun to be orbiting anything. The Voyagers are currently measuring the speed of the solar wind as it nears the interstellar median.This is a little off topic, but this is fascinating! I have a question though, didn't we already know we were moving? I mean I thought galaxies spin, and we're in the Milky Way Galaxy, and the Milky Way Galaxy is spinning, and therefore, we are moving in orbit around the center of our galaxy. Right? Or is there additional movement you're referring to? Or are you saying now we can measure how much we're moving? What new information exactly have we gained from this?
Radiation is absorbed by electrons. Hydrogen only has 1 electron whereas Oxygen has 16. A water molecule has 18 electrons, it's ability to block radiation compared to oxygen is negligible at best.Even a common atmospheric cloud can reduce radiation by 95%.
How would a cloud of interstellar dust get within 1AU of the Sun?But a cloud of interstellar dust that reduced radiation by 95% would add slightly over 3 half lives, or approximately 20,000 years, to the apparent age of an object.
Are you talking about a 95% reduction in solar radiation? If so, I would imagine the oceans would be frozen solid, right?But a cloud of interstellar dust that reduced radiation by 95% would add slightly over 3 half lives, or approximately 20,000 years, to the apparent age of an object.
We have known for hundreds of years that stars move from comparing star charts thousands of years ago to those that we see today, I would have been logical to assume that the sun too moved at that point. Up until the late 19th century, however we really did not know what was beyond our galaxy or really even the shape of it so I do not believe that anyone actually thought the sun to be orbiting anything. The Voyagers are currently measuring the speed of the solar wind as it nears the interstellar median.
http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSN1044867120071211
You can read about the contoversy in this article from Nature in 2003.Thank you. That was fascinating.
I did a little more reading into the heliosphere and it turns out that there was some controversy when Voyager 1 got to the termination shock also.
http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=36805
The time during which raw C-14 dating can be independently verified as roughly accurate is ~26,000 years. This is also the time during which calibrated C-14 can provide accurate dates, i.e. it's the period for which C-14 is actually used. If you are talking about C-14 production as it relates to C-14 dating, then this period is entirely relevant to the discussion. If you're talking about C-14 production at other times . . . does anyone really care?This signifies nothing more than that there has been no observable change during the time for which age can be independently verified. It has zero bearing on my point.
Could you please provide a source for this number? We are talking about ionizing radiation, remember, and this number looks completely off. An ordinary cloud will have no significant effect on ionizing radiation. (You might note, for starters, that a cloud is actually less dense than an equivalent volume of dry air.) And an interstellar cloud is much, much less dense than the atmosphere.Even a common atmospheric cloud can reduce radiation by 95%.
Reading a little, I see that the actual effect of an interstellar cloud would be the opposite: it would collapse the effective range of the Sun's magnetic field, thereby increasing the cosmic ray flux and the ensuing C-14 production. (You also might want to note that for your proposed cloud to add 20,000 years of apparent age, it would have to have lasted for 20,000 years before the time being tested.)Atmospheric clouds cannot reduce c14 production because it takes place at a higher altitude than such clouds. But a cloud of interstellar dust that reduced radiation by 95% would add slightly over 3 half lives, or approximately 20,000 years, to the apparent age of an object.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?