Request for Carbon-14 Dating explanation

Hi Justin,As you can see from the posts, these are great people to work with to get questions answered.There is an additional, huge assumption which I think is worse than any listed so far. This is that the atmosphere of the earth is roughly as old as the earth.In 1975 I created a formula to see what C-14 said the age of the atmosphere is. My formula was checked by a statistician at the life insurance company we were employed by. When I put the numbers (which I found in some science book) into his scientific calculator, both of our jaws dropped when the number 13,600 came out (this is, of course, amazingly close to 6,000 years of creation and 6,000 years of history).There is, as far as I can see, no way to prove that the atmosphere is not 13,600 years old and trying to correlate it to the age of the earth is, therefor, suspect.I continued to put some effort into the problem but gained little additional information. For example, sometime before 1983 I used a computer and the same formula to compute the error in time estimation which would occur for each year if saturation over 50,000 years was assumed compared to if the 13,600 year age were to be correct. Of course, the computer reported that the error was infinite after 13,600 years ago (division by zero) so not much was learned.I am not a scientist but I fully understand the arithmetic required to create (organize) the fomula and I did have it checked and I believe what it told me! I think it is worth taking into account,Very best wishes,Bob, Alice, and Eve(Edited to correct a gross spelling error)This message has been edited by BobAliceEve, 05-08-2004 06:28 AM

Thank you for asking, Crashfrog!! I am pleased to not be dismissed outright by you.I would like to work with someone on the evolution side to develop the program and identify accurate inputs. I am hoping for someone who has some respect so this will not be just another ignored effort - no matter which way it turns out. The group will be welcome to have their say along the way (I know there would be no way to stop them but I do welcome their input).After we publish the results from this study, I will publish the program and inputs I used; assuming that my original is different from what we come up with.As I see it, we need another person who can at least handle annuity level arithmetic and someone who can obtain the current values for creation and decay of C14. What do you see? Do you have these skills or can you recommend someone?Again, thanks.BAE

Posts 17 and 18 were dismissive, NoseyNed. Crashfrog's (16) was not.As can be seen in the quote below, I included the word "not" but I see now that I could have added "as I was by others" and it might have been clearer. I just did not see a necessity in pointing out the dismissals. No need to reply. I accept your statement in the good framework that it was intended. As I noted before, your posts are all fair-minded.Best regards,
BAE

To all who posted, thanks. If I might post again to move this along. Each of you have ideas and/or questions which are in the track that I am pursuing.I really want this to be a joint effort. I am not seeking any credit and I want the results to be accepted by those who will so my not doing anything but guiding is the best route. This will take very little effort on anyone's part.NosyNed, I am not claiming even an amature-scientist standing which is why I am asking someone who has the skills to do the work. I will accept the results.PaulK, I appreciate your reminder that the production of C14 is not constant. Perhaps we can set an upper and lower limit and see how those affect the results? You (the group) are in charge so that it is not my model - I will just be asking questions.Melchior, this will not be "BAE's results". I did it once and am asking the group to prove, disprove, or adjust my results.Coragyphs, I will review your post #9 for formations. I hope to be able to show why a hard number of current decays is necessary.Thanks again,
BAE

Hi Ned,I appreciate your support. Finding someone to discuss this with has been difficult and the resulting clamor may have clouded the issue. I don't know PaulK that well so if you would mentor/monitor. Thanks, it will be short.Statement of purpose:To show that while using a simple program and the best numbers I could find, the result which occured was amazing to myself (and another). I am not trying to prove that the earth is flat or round; I am simply making an observation which I thought worth considering: that the resulting years to reach the current level of C14 saturation is very close to the age that some creationists say is the age of the earth. Any extension of it, if done, will be done by someone else as I am not a scientist.Introduction:First, I thought that this work was so obvious that there would be no need to state it but I will gladly satisfy the request(s).At the time I did the work I was not aware of anyone else having done it. I have not been able to locate on the web the explicit statements I will make today though some results I have seen may have been derived by the same method. If PaulK is correct (the variation has been too great to track) then my observation has no scientific value. If Ned is correct (the variation has been at most 10%) then there may be some scientific value.Development of the idea:In a discussion I was having about C14, the concept sounded very much like a model of it could fall into the everyday category of money management. Dollars come in and dollars go out - C14 comes in and C14 goes out.The annuity model came to mind. Starting with a dollar amount, a fixed interest rate, and regular annual payout, how long can the payout be made?
PA (payment_amount) = regular_pay_out
AB (amount_balance) = initial_dollar_amount
IR (interest_rate) = fixed_interest_rate
YR (years) = 0
while AR GT PA
do
AB := AB * ( 1 + IR )
AB := AB - PA
YR := YR + 1
doneThe same program could be used for balance owed on a house to see how many years payments would have to be made.
PA := regular_pay_in
AB := initial_loan_balance
IR := fixed_interest_rateThe same program works for predicting how many years it will take to meet a savings goal:
PA := regular_deposit
AB := 0.00
IR := fixed_interest_rateWhat about the somewhat different C14 issue? The issue is different because a fixed amount is coming in and a percent is going out. Also, since the amount coming in may vary over time, the indication "current' needed to be added.Finalization specifically for the C14 issue:To make the program run faster, the accumulations were annualized. The result will change if a smaller period is used.CAA := current_C14_annual_accumulation_amount
AB := 0 (accumulated balance in the atmosphere at at year 0)
IR := rate_which_makes_one_half_in_5730_years
A few attempts gave 0.99988 ^ 5730 = 0.50+In the money management programs the goal was always zero or an amount. In the C14 version a parameter is needed to indicate how far along the saturation process is (100% is never reached though 100,000 years brings it close). Also the saturation amount is not known but the saturation condition is recognizable in that the accumulations will equal the decays.
CAD := current_C14_annual_decay_amount
IDA (iteration_decay_amount) = 0
IAD will approach the current_annual_decays
while IDA LT CAD
do
IDA := AB * ( 1.0 - 0.99988 )
AB := AB + CAA - IAD
YR := YR + 1
doneI could not cut-and-paste my program so please be gentle with this untested version.Back in 1978 when I assigned CAA the value 22 and CAD the value 17 (accumulations/decays persecond annualized), the result was 13,600. On a modern computer today, the result was around 12,500. Please evaluate the (intended) program then provide current accumulation and decay values and let's see what comes out. If it is around 12,000 years then I ask is it possible that a new atmosphere was placed on the earth around 12,000 years ago.Thank you for your patience,
Bob, Alice, and EveEdited to clarify 22 and 17 as per second annualized.This message has been edited by BobAliceEve, 05-11-2004 03:32 PM