Carbon Dating

[[serious]]

And, this has what to do with the accuracy of carbon dating relying on a theory shown wrong since 1957? the study was from 8,400 years ago. Did you read what I said?

How does any of that have to do with decay rates? Observed decay rates are observed decay rates regardless of the model you use to explain them.

"This is why it's only consistent to a around 50,000 years. After that the errors introduced from parity violation become too cumulative great."

It's well known that carbon dating, due to carbon's half life, are only reliable out to about 50,000 years. 50,000 is substantially larger than 6000.

For longer periods, there are other elements we use to date which have longer half lives.

Never said it wasn't close enough to use on something within the last few thousand years.

Some studies suggest we don't know what we like to think we know about how cold it might have been around 7000 years ago.

Researchers find arctic may have had less ice 6000-7000 years ago | Watts Up With That?

How does temperature effect decay rates? I've yet to see such a theory. Please source your argument as it currently violates pretty basic aspects of physics.

When sunspots numbers were at their lowest.

I've read about the idea of a solar activity decay rate link previously. First off, give it time. It would not be the first time something appeared to violate the current model only later to wash out as failure to account for other known factors or the like. Don't forget the suspected faster than light particles a few years back that was due to simple equipment error.

But let's set that aside for a moment, Let's take he worst case scenario here. Radon 222 shows the largest seasonal variation, 4%. Let's assume, for a moment, that every single decay rate has this same variation, then let's assume a 6000 year "fast" season. 6000*4% error is 240 years off, max. It nets you a few hundred years, but you still have the remained of the 4.5 billion years to explain.

EDIT: But yes, it is quite possible something locally affected things, but look at the overall picture. It's a cycle with higher temps in the past than we have achieved, and it's gonna go down, not up.

Source?

 

[sjastro]

"This is why it's only consistent to a around 50,000 years. After that the errors introduced from parity violation become too cumulative great."

I can see you are maintaining your usual standard by such a totally ridiculous statement.

I wouldn't expect you even have the vaguest idea of what the term symmetry means in physics, or the roles of mathematical operators such as parity, charge conjugation, or the combined charge conjugation parity operator, and how these relate to physical processes such a beta decay.
Neither would you have the vaguest idea of how the use of symmetry, and symmetry violations with the associated mathematical operators has led to the prediction of particles that have been subsequently confirmed by experiment.

Please don't try your stupid tactic of supplying a link.
All you would demonstrate is how to use a search engine and nothing more.

 

[Kylie]

I'm still waiting for any of you to show me one correct prediction by mainstream where probes have taken direct measurements?????

So I wouldn't be so sure of myself if I was in your shoes.


You are right, some things never change, you are still following falsified theories and ignoring the data in favor of Fairie Dust...

You do realise that results from carbon dating can, in some cases, be cross checked with tree rings, and tree rings are accurate to the exact year.

 

[RickG]

Well then, I'll take this as strong support for my position that there are no examples of carbon dating producing impossible dates when used correctly.

That's pretty much it. Maybe they caught on to your qualification, "when used correctly".

 

[RickG]

And, this has what to do with the accuracy of carbon dating relying on a theory shown wrong since 1957? the study was from 8,400 years ago. Did you read what I said?

Yes, I read what you said, it reaked with Dunning/Kruger, which is why I asked you to give me an assessment of the first paragraph of that study. There is a specific reason I chose that paragraph, you missed it.

"This is why it's only consistent to a around 50,000 years. After that the errors introduced from parity violation become too cumulative great."

It works well a bit more past 50,000 years. It is just the margin of error generally increases.

Never said it wasn't close enough to use on something within the last few thousand years.

I never said you said that.

Some studies suggest we don't know what we like to think we know about how cold it might have been around 7000 years ago.

Researchers find arctic may have had less ice 6000-7000 years ago | Watts Up With That?

Seriously? "Watts Up With That?" Anthony Watts is the Kent Hovind of Climate Science.

 

[Kylie]

That's pretty much it. Maybe they caught on to your qualification, "when used correctly".

Hell, I could probably get a calculator to tell me 2+2=5 if I use it INcorrectly...

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I can see you are maintaining your usual standard by such a totally ridiculous statement.

I wouldn't expect you even have the vaguest idea of what the term symmetry means in physics, or the roles of mathematical operators such as parity, charge conjugation, or the combined charge conjugation parity operator, and how these relate to physical processes such a beta decay.
Neither would you have the vaguest idea of how the use of symmetry, and symmetry violations with the associated mathematical operators has led to the prediction of particles that have been subsequently confirmed by experiment.

Please don't try your stupid tactic of supplying a link.
All you would demonstrate is how to use a search engine and nothing more.

Apparently I understand more than you, since it is you that is wanting to ignore the fact that Fermi's theory is no longer used in physics, just geology and dating, so geology could become a hard science instead of just the philosophy it was before then.

If there is so little problem with Fermi's theory, then why was it abandoned by the physics you claim supports you?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I can see you are maintaining your usual standard by such a totally ridiculous statement.

I wouldn't expect you even have the vaguest idea of what the term symmetry means in physics, or the roles of mathematical operators such as parity, charge conjugation, or the combined charge conjugation parity operator, and how these relate to physical processes such a beta decay.
Neither would you have the vaguest idea of how the use of symmetry, and symmetry violations with the associated mathematical operators has led to the prediction of particles that have been subsequently confirmed by experiment.

Please don't try your stupid tactic of supplying a link.
All you would demonstrate is how to use a search engine and nothing more.

Well come on, let's have a discussion then, see who really is full of hot air. Predictions of particles not predicted in Fermi's incorrect model that you use for dating. It is those symmetry violations that falsified Fermi's weak theory. "Although the weak interaction used to be described by Fermi's theory, the discovery of parity violation and renormalization theory suggested that a new approach was needed."

A new approach was devised for the weak interaction, but not for carbon dating based upon that incorrect theory to begin with. But you want me to believe it is ok to use a theory based upon a known falsified theory.

All you have demonstrated is your willingness to ignore the falsification of your theory and pretend all is well in wonderland. You have yet to justify how the process of parity violation does not affect your carbon dating, being based upon that same weak force that required a revamping of the theory itself due to it's being wrong?

You are too busy making personal attacks to actually talk science, because we both know you can't challenge the science, without ignoring half of it and adding Fairie Dust to the other half.

Just what theory are you relying on for carbon dating? Fermi's weak force was scrapped and a new theory instated, nothing about carbon dating was ever changed, even when it relied on that weak force that was falsified as the basis for it's conclusions. You can't just pretend it wasn't affected because the average person doesn't know the history.

I mean really, who you trying to fool, me or yourself?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

How does violation of symmetry impact decay rate?

Decay rates were known prior to Fermi. His model was an attempt to explain them. His theory being wrong about the underlying mechanisms doesn't change the observations on which they were based, nor does it suggest that the rates were different in the past.

It just shows he was wrong.

And no they weren't. Decay rates in atoms wasn't discovered until 1896 and a theory worked out in between 1899 and 1906.

"In 1933, Enrico Fermi proposed the first theory of the weak interaction, known as Fermi's interaction. He suggested that beta decay could be explained by a four-fermion interaction, involving a contact force with no range.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_interaction#cite_note-Fermi.27s_theory-3http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_interaction#cite_note-Fermi.27s_theory_translation-4 However, it is better described as a non-contact force field having a finite range, albeit very short. In 1968, Sheldon Glashow, Abdus Salam and Steven Weinberg unified the electromagnetic force and the weak interaction by showing them to be two aspects of a single force, now termed the electro-weak force."


but you do not use the electro-weak theory as it is now formulated in your carbon dating theory. You instead pretend it is the same old weak force shown to be wrong.

 

[[serious]]

It just shows he was wrong.

And no they weren't. Decay rates in atoms wasn't discovered until 1896 and a theory worked out in between 1899 and 1906.

"In 1933, Enrico Fermi proposed the first theory of the weak interaction, known as Fermi's interaction. He suggested that beta decay could be explained by a four-fermion interaction, involving a contact force with no range.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_interaction#cite_note-Fermi.27s_theory-3http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_interaction#cite_note-Fermi.27s_theory_translation-4 However, it is better described as a non-contact force field having a finite range, albeit very short. In 1968, Sheldon Glashow, Abdus Salam and Steven Weinberg unified the electromagnetic force and the weak interaction by showing them to be two aspects of a single force, now termed the electro-weak force."


but you do not use the electro-weak theory as it is now formulated in your carbon dating theory. You instead pretend it is the same old weak force shown to be wrong.

Wow, that's a lot of wikipedia. Let's put together a time line:
17th century Newton describes his cooling law, an exponential decay.
1899 (I've got 1896) radioactivity discovered. Discovered to be exponential decay shortly after.
1907 lead-uranium radiometric dating first used to determine the age of rocks. Bertram Boltwood - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
1933 Fermi proposes his explanation

So is dating methods use Fermi's work, how did boltwood do his dating?

 

[sjastro]

Well come on, let's have a discussion then, see who really is full of hot air. Predictions of particles not predicted in Fermi's incorrect model that you use for dating. It is those symmetry violations that falsified Fermi's weak theory. "Although the weak interaction used to be described by Fermi's theory, the discovery of parity violation and renormalization theory suggested that a new approach was needed."

A new approach was devised for the weak interaction, but not for carbon dating based upon that incorrect theory to begin with. But you want me to believe it is ok to use a theory based upon a known falsified theory.

All you have demonstrated is your willingness to ignore the falsification of your theory and pretend all is well in wonderland. You have yet to justify how the process of parity violation does not affect your carbon dating, being based upon that same weak force that required a revamping of the theory itself due to it's being wrong?

You are too busy making personal attacks to actually talk science, because we both know you can't challenge the science, without ignoring half of it and adding Fairie Dust to the other half.

Just what theory are you relying on for carbon dating? Fermi's weak force was scrapped and a new theory instated, nothing about carbon dating was ever changed, even when it relied on that weak force that was falsified as the basis for it's conclusions. You can't just pretend it wasn't affected because the average person doesn't know the history.

I mean really, who you trying to fool, me or yourself?

You are a complete imbecile.

Carbon dating is based on the use of an exponential decay law.
In case you didn't know the this decay law applies to a wide variety of mechanisms ranging from the biological sciences to chemical kinetics.

The decay law is an example of an empirically established law and is based on observation or measurement, not theory.

Empirical laws are established before theories attempt to explain them.

 

[MikeCarra]

You can also start your search with Enrico Fermi who developed radioactive decay. Which was based upon the weak force. Later after it was found to violate parity, that theory was revised, but radioactive dating still uses the same exact formula it started with, even though the theory it was based on was shown to be in error and had to be revised.

This is why it's only consistent to a around 50,000 years. After that the errors introduced from parity violation become too cumulative great.

Weak interaction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Violation of Symmetry heading"

It used to be described by Fermi's theory, but it was wrong. Yet radioactive decay is still described by Ferni's theory.

So don't put too much faith in a theory using an incorrect theory to start with.

Others have pointed out the obvious flaw in your critique but it is worth repeating:

the decay of a given radioactive material can be MEASURED. Regardless of the underlying "hypothesis" as to the MECHANISM.

For instance: I don't have to know how the car's engine works to accurately measure the velocity of the car.

Radioactive decay follows a first order kinetic. In Chemistry there are many reactions that follow this kinetic (rate).

For instance: one can measure the decay of 14-C by measuring how much 14-N is produced and how much 14-C is left over. You get this kind of graph:

This is an exponential decay. I don't care what the mechanism is, it is a clock. It ticks like this according to the following equation:

We can measure the "half life" and N(t) is the amount of material at time = t, whereas No is the amount at the start.

We can get a rate and we can estimate how long it has been decaying.

All that without knowing the underlying mechanism.

Now, IF you feel that the underlying theory will impact how sure we are that the rate is constant, that's another thing. But to my knowledge we know of nothing that can change the rate of 14-C decay.

There are some indications from a study I saw years ago of a neutrino-induced change in the decay rates of a relatively rare isotope of Si, but it followed a solar cycle so it averaged out.

But to question radiocarbon dating based on the underlying theory vs what is actually measured seems more like mining for "doubt".



[FONT=MathJax_Math]N[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Math]t[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Main]=[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Math]N[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Math]o[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Size3]([/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Main]1[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Main]2[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Size3])[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Math]t[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Main]/[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Math]t[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Main]1[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Main]/[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Main][/FONT]

 

[RickG]

Perhaps justaseeker is not aware that there are other types of decay than beta-decay, not to mention different types of beta-decay as well. Just a thought.

 

[Michael]

There are some indications from a study I saw years ago of a neutrino-induced change in the decay rates of a relatively rare isotope of Si, but it followed a solar cycle so it averaged out.

That might suggest that the decay mechanism is related to neutrinos, which do vary with the solar cycles, but have been pretty stable over the course of Earth's 4.6 billion year history.

But to question radiocarbon dating based on the underlying theory vs what is actually measured seems more like mining for "doubt".

Indeed.