quote:In an earlier section we mentioned that the limit of the technique is about 55-60 000 years. Obviously, the limit of the method differs between laboratories dependent upon the extent to which background levels of radioactivity can be reduced. Amongst accelerator laboratories there has been mooted the theoretical possibility of extended range dating to 75 000 yr +, at present this seems difficult to attain because of the problems in accurately differentiating between ions that mimic the mass and charge characteristics of the C14 atom. Beukens (1994) for instance has stated that this means the limit of the range for his Isotrace laboratory is 60 000 yr which is very similar to the conventional range.
Figure 1: This gif shows the comparison in radioactivity between a sample, or unknown (green area) , a modern standard (dark blue) and a background (small red peaks) derived from beta decay. The scale represents log E (energy).
As you can see there is less 14C (green) in the sample of unknown age than in the standard sample (blue).
... Most trees don't grow new rings. They have them at once and they become distinct and spread with age.
I'm sorry, but this is patiently false information,and whoever told you this was providing you with false information.
The first growth (sprouting) of a tree occurs with pith and it does not contain any rings at all. This is retained in the trunk as a pith center around which the rings form as the tree grows.
Please note that this can be -- and has been -- tested: you can take a core sample from a tree and then come back 5 or 10 years later and take another core. What you will find is that the rings in the original core are still the same width in the later core, and that the later core has new additional rings at the outer perimeter, normally one for each year that has passed since the first core.
The fact that thousands of scientists have for hundreds of years used this information to measure ages of timbers used in constructions should be evidence enough that what you said would be impossible to have occurred as it would not be possible to use such a growth pattern for such measurements.
You can also test this by cutting through the bark and the cambium layer ...
quote:Wood, in the strict sense, is yielded by trees, which increase in diameter by the formation, between the existing wood and the inner bark, of new woody layers which envelop the entire stem, living branches, and roots. This process is known as secondary growth; it is the result of cell division in the vascular cambium, a lateral meristem, and subsequent expansion of the new cells. Where there are clear seasons, growth can occur in a discrete annual or seasonal pattern, leading to growth rings; these can usually be most clearly seen on the end of a log, but are also visible on the other surfaces. If these seasons are annual these growth rings are referred to as annual rings. Where there is no seasonal difference growth rings are likely to be indistinct or absent.
If there are differences within a growth ring, then the part of a growth ring nearest the center of the tree, and formed early in the growing season when growth is rapid, is usually composed of wider elements. It is usually lighter in color than that near the outer portion of the ring, and is known as earlywood or springwood. The outer portion formed later in the season is then known as the latewood or summerwood.
quote:A cambium (plural cambia or cambiums), in botany, is a tissue layer that provides undifferentiated cells for plant growth. It forms parallel rows of cells, which result in secondary tissues.[1]
Briefly speaking the cambium layer is where the growth occurs in trees, it lies between the bark (the outer parts being dead cells) and the wood interior (also dead cells). Each year this layer adds new growth around the outside of the deadwood core, which then dies before the next layer is added outside it.
If you cut the bark and cambium layer off in a ring around a tree trunk the tree will die, and if you take off just the dead bark outside, the bark will be repaired. This proves that the growth occurs in the cambium layer.
Message 443: You always keep track of the date when you pull something from a tree. The results don't always represent tree ring growth.
Again this sounds confused, and is likely due to misinformation on your end.
Let me guess, you measure every ring as it expands too. ...
Again, the rings don't expand after they have died, only the new ring that is forming is where there is growth, and this ring is not used in dendrochronology measurements because it is incomplete.
... It is interesting to me how paper seems to date better than corpses.
Can you provide references to this? I can think of several reasons for this to occur, however to best understand your argument I would need to see its source.
How do the trees manage to know in advance how old they are going to get?
They don't, because the amount rings of the tree is meaningless to carbon-14 dating. You pretend to have studied this on a cell level. All rings of the tree tend to get bigger with age.
Actually there are thousands of scientists you have actually studied this on the actual cell level, and curiously they came to the conclusion that tree rings do not expand with age because the wood core is composed of dead cells.
If you are going to attempt to invalidate 14C dating then you need to use actual valid information.
Can you please provide the source of your misinformation? What tests have you done to validate your claims?
Why didn't you notice how the rings in the middle are getting bigger? Did you ever notice that I don't respond to much? Usually, when you post to me, it is unworthy.
I am unfamiliar with other instruments that do what a Geiger counter does.
You thought I wanted to invalidate C14 dating? I know you are confused.
Why didn't you notice how the rings in the middle are getting bigger?
I don't see any pictures of rings in one tree getting larger over time.
Did you ever notice that I don't respond to much? Usually, when you post to me, it is unworthy.
RAZD mostly knows his stuff. You would do well to study and learn from his messages.
I am unfamiliar with other instruments that do what a Geiger counter does.
Irrelevant. Geiger counters have nothing to do with tree ring dating. When tree samples are dated with 14C the most usual instrument is a mass spectrometer counting the atoms individually by weight. Whether or not they are radioactive.
You thought I wanted to invalidate C14 dating? I know you are confused.
Well, it's certain you are horribly confused because pretty much everything you have said about tree rings is false, s has been pointed out at least twice.
So what are you trying to do? Make up false stories about trees? What?
The fact that thousands of scientists have for hundreds of years used this information to measure ages of timbers used in constructions should be evidence enough that what you said would be impossible to have occurred as it would not be possible to use such a growth pattern for such measurements.
Who needs scientists. That picture next to my name is a logging truck. On the subject of tree rings, this guy doesn't know his ass from a hot rock.
It's a myth. Tree ring dating does not improve radiocarbon dating, and the data prove it. Tree rings are not all produced one per year; and they aren't very distinct in small trees. It's NUTBALL JUNK.
It is obvious radiocarbon dating is not based on it.
I sincerely wish it belonged to me. It's a '72 Hayes W-HD, a step below the HDX which was the really big one. 12V-71. 5x4 trans. Perfectly restored, lives in Port Alberni.
You can ride along with the owner in his work truck here:
Tree rings are not all produced one per year; and they aren't very distinct in small trees.
No one cares if "not all produced one per year" since there are quite a few well known, well studied species that do. No one cares that "they aren't very distinct in small trees," since small trees are not used in the calibration protocols.
Tree ring dating does not improve radiocarbon dating, and the data prove it.
Except that it indeed does improve the dating and the data actually do show it to be fact.
It's a myth. Tree ring dating does not improve radiocarbon dating, and the data prove it. Tree rings are not all produced one per year; and they aren't very distinct in small trees. It's NUTBALL JUNK.
It is obvious radiocarbon dating is not based on it.
Your ignorance concerning radiocarbon dating is exceeded only by your zeal in trying to discredit the technique.
Please tell us, how many radiocarbon samples you have submitted for analysis? (I have submitted somewhere over 650.)
Also, please tell us the source of your vast knowledge of the subject. (I have lectured extensively on the subject and authored a monograph on it as well. And was a while back on the advisory board of a radiocarbon laboratory.)
"The data prove it?" Please advise us, in detail, what that data might be. And please address, while you are at it, the conciliance between known historical dates and calibrated radiocarbon dates. By the way, those calibrated radiocarbon dates are obtained by using a calibration curve based on tree-rings (from several locations), corals, glacial carves, ice cores, deep lake cores, and other annular data. Please explain to us why all of them agree, and why you think all of them are wrong (maybe some creationist website told you so?).
What your posts show is that you really know nothing about the subject, but most likely, out of religious zeal, you are attempting to discredit it anyway. Your efforts would be a lot more effective if you knew something about what you were debating. Otherwise you just look pretty silly.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
