Question About the Universe

quote:

---

So, in the case of 14C, if the rate varies by 0.1%, that would mean that the half-life would vary by 5.7 years in 5700 years.
And that, of course, would be if the variation from the accepted half-life was continuous, which does not appear to be the case.
Now, as I look up the C14 half life, I get this value: 5730+/-40 years.
(Carbon-14 - Wikipedia)
Note the error bounds, which, if I understand correctly, would include more than the 0.1% variability that we are talking about here.
So, what is the significance of this effect, in the context of a 6ky old earth?
Weird, eh?
I will defer to any physicists here who can correct me on this.

---

I did not claim that 14C varied significantly as measured today. If 14C is in diamonds or coal they can not be as old as claimed or the decay rate has varied over time in a significant way. One or the other.If radio active decay varied at all, even .01% (not just error in measurement) then the principle of radio decay invariance is nonsense.But maybe you prefer Dr. Bertshe the MD (Sorry he is a physicist (Kirk)) tell you that a geophysicist is wrong.Edited by zaius137, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Note how old this information is, and that knowing it would mean that creationists that wanted to discredit 14C dating to gullible people could go looking for coal etc deposits next to radioactive materials

---

I do not contest 14C dates we observe today. maybe they varied in the past, if they did not please explain 14C in diamonds.

The diamonds experiment was done by Taylor and Southon.You might try reading the original article for yourself.There is no help there for creationists trying to deny science.

Curiously none of his creationist papers are in peer reviewed science journals, including any articles about 14C in coal and oil ... care to guess why?See Message 283

quote:

---

Because 14C can be created from these materials when they are subject to radiation, as occurs with carbons rods used in fission generators to control the rate of reactions.

​

See also CD011.6: C14 date of old oil
and Page Not Found | ORNL (1977)

​

Note how old this information is, and that knowing it would mean that creationists that wanted to discredit 14C dating to gullible people could go looking for coal etc deposits next to radioactive materials ...

---

Now I am sure that Baumgardner was familiar with the process of radiation contamination of diamonds and coal and oil and other such substances, and so he knew that all he needed to do was find some materials contaminated in this way, submit it to a testing lab and await the predictable results.As far as coal and oil goes see Carbon-14 in Coal Deposits

quote:

---

The short version: the 14C in coal is probably produced de novo by radioactive decay of the uranium-thorium isotope series that is naturally found in rocks (and which is found in varying concentrations in different rocks, hence the variation in 14C content in different coals). Research is ongoing at this very moment.

​

Over the weekend I emailed Dr. Harry Gove, an expert in the development of the AMS method of 14C dating. ...

​

Dr. Gove wrote back the very next day, as did one of his colleagues. By sheer coincidence, they are currently studying this exact question. It turns out that the origin and concentration of 14C in fossil fuels is important to the physics community because of its relevance for detection of solar neutrinos. Apparently one of the new neutrino detectors, the Borexino detector in Italy, works by detecting tiny flashes of visible light produced by neutrinos passing through a huge subterranean vat of "scintillation fluid". Scintillation fluid is made from fossil fuels such as methane or oil (plus some other ingredients), and it sparkles when struck by beta particles or certain other events such as neutrinos. The Borexino detector has 800 tons of scintillant. However, if there are any native beta emitters in the fluid itself, that natural radioactive decay will also produce scintillant flashes. (In fact that's the more common use of scintillant. I use scintillant every day in my own work to detect 14C and 3H-tagged hormones. But I only use a milliliter at a time - the concept of 800 tons really boggles the mind!). So, the physics community has gotten interested in finding out whether and why fossil fuels have native radioactivity. The aim is to find fossil fuels that have a 14C/C ratio of 10-20 or less; below that, neutrino activity can be reliably detected. The Borexino detector, and other planned detectors of this type, must keep native beta emissions to below 1 count per ton of fluid per week to reliably detect solar neutrinos. (In comparison, my little hormone vials, here in my above-ground lab, have a background count of about 25 counts per minute for 3.5 milliliters.)

​

So, the physicists want to find fossil fuels that have very little 14C. In the course of this work, they've discovered that fossil fuels vary widely in 14C content. Some have no detectable 14C; some have quite a lot of 14C. Apparently it correlates best with the content of the natural radioactivity of the rocks surrounding the fossil fuels, particularly the neutron- and alpha-particle-emitting isotopes of the uranium-thorium series. Dr. Gove and his colleagues told me they think the evidence so far demonstrates that 14C in coal and other fossil fuels is derived entirely from new production of 14C by local radioactive decay of the uranium-thorium series. Many studies verify that coals vary widely in uranium-thorium content, and that this can result in inflated content of certain isotopes relevant to radiometric dating (see abstracts below). I now understand why fossil fuels are not routinely used in radiometric dating!

---

The variation in 14C levels in different coal samples of the same basic age relative to 14C half-life correlates more with radioactive levels in surrounding rocks than with the age of the coal.Consider that it is highly likely that Baumgardner knew this, or he wouldn't have paid the relatively expensive testing costs on something one would ordinarily expect to return unmeasurable results. Now I get a little peeved when people take information from science and intentionally misuse it to create a false impression, don't you?Curiously I'll put Dr. Harry Gove, "an expert in the development of the AMS method of 14C dating" up against your John R. Baumgardner "a geophysicist" any day you want to have a battle of the fallacy of appeal to experts ... rather than look at the evidence and what it tells you when all the facts are known.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : corrected phrase "The variation is 14C levels in different rocks" -- 14C not used on rocks

Unless that residual C14 is coming from various contaminants and instrumentation residues. Then where are you? But C14 ages are calibrated against the calibration curve, so any such factors are taken into account in the resulting date. And that right there is enough to blow the 6000 year belief right out of the water.

Good, because I can demonstrate that it correlates with historical data back to the Egyptians, and I can further show you the correlation with tree rings and lake varves for continuous annual layers back to the limits of 14C dating (40,000 to 50,000 years).The correlation is necessary for increased accuracy due to the known variation of 14C in the atmosphere from the production of 14C by solar cosmic radiation. From the correlation we can now use the actual 14C/13C ratios in objects to determine their probable ages within a known margin of error. Whether they did or did not is irrelevant now. All we need is the measured 14C/13C levels and use the correlation curve derived from the annual layers to provide the likely age of an object that obtained 14C directly from the atmosphere. Radiation from surrounding rocks. The 1977 paper in Message 283 tells you that close proximity to radioactive materials can cause 14C to form in the carbon control rods used in reactors. The rods are almost pure carbon, as are diamonds.Enjoy

quote:

---

Curiously none of his creationist papers are in peer reviewed science journals, including any articles about 14C in coal and oil ... care to guess why?

---

Yes, regardless the credential a creationist is labeled a outsider.

quote:

---

Now I am sure that Baumgardner was familiar with the process of radiation contamination of diamonds and coal and oil and other such substances, and so he knew that all he needed to do was find some materials contaminated in this way, submit it to a testing lab and await the predictable results.

---

Carbon-14 is most commonly produced in the upper atmosphere from Nitrogen-14 not in diamonds or oil. How much Nitrogen-14 is in diamonds? Small amounts I would guess, so production in that way would be rare in diamonds. I would think that would be the same case for oil and coal right, just trace amounts. You could then assume that Carbon-14 production is rare in the host materials.I have every confidence that professor Baumgardner is familiar with sample contamination.Path for the rarer production of Carbon-14 like from your post.

quote:

---

Carbon-14 can also be produced by other neutron reactions, including in particular 13C(n,gamma)14C and 17O(n,alpha)14C with thermal neutrons, and 15N(n,d)14C and 16O(n,3He)14C with fast neutrons.[14] The most notable routes for 14C production by thermal neutron irradiation of targets (e.g., in a nuclear reactor) are summarized in the table.

---

quote:

---

The variation is 14C levels in different rocks of the same basic age relative to 14C half-life correlates more with radioactive levels in surrounding rocks than with the age of the rocks.

---

I am not aware that 14C in rocks has that much relevance for dating them, I thought Potassium Argon dating was predominate for rock dating.

quote:

---

Good, because I can demonstrate that it correlates with historical data back to the Egyptians, and I can further show you the correlation with tree rings and lake varves for continuous annual layers back to the limits of 14C dating (40,000 to 50,000 years).
The correlation is necessary for increased accuracy due to the known variation of 14C in the atmosphere from the production of 14C by solar cosmic radiation. From the correlation we can now use the actual 14C/13C ratios in objects to determine their probable ages within a known margin of error.

---

Good, now you can define a date of a diamond with 14C present?I do not contest the dates of Egyptian culture, simply because most dates correspond to dates in the Bible. You know that those older dates for 14C percentages are recalibrated to other dates to increase accuracy.

You mean rocks, like diamonds and coal?

quote:

---

Radiation from surrounding rocks. The 1977 paper in Message 283 tells you that close proximity to radioactive materials can cause 14C to form in the carbon control rods used in reactors. The rods are almost pure carbon, as are diamonds.

---

Carbon control rods in reactors?? Once carbon is saturated with neutrons it is then less effective as a control rod. Edited by zaius137, : No reason given.

quote:

---

You mean rocks, like diamonds and coal?

---

I am not sure... that was from RAZD.

"I would guess"? Really, zaius137?Crystallographic defects in diamond - Wikipedia

quote:

---

The most common impurity in diamond is nitrogen, which can comprise up to 1% of a diamond by mass

---

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0706/0706.2518.pdf

quote:

---

Incorporation of nitrogen in the diamond lattice is energetically favorable, and therefore nearly all natural and synthetic diamond contains some native concentration
of N. Consequently, N is in some way involved in the majority of the defect centers studied in bulk diamond.

---

Only if your goal was to assert and be wrong. Don't you ever check anything?

Yes, graphite is used as a component of control rods. The carbon does not have a large cross section for absorption, but that is not it's function. Carbon acts as a moderator to slow down fast neutrons so that they are more readily captured by boron or material effective at neutron capture.But almost all sources of natural sources of carbon incorporate some nitrogen. That's where the C-14 comes from.

So, let me get this straight. You want to produce an extreme discrepancy with an insignificant process.Do I have that right? Oh, I have little doubt that rates vary, but for me the question is how much? We also know that the speed of light varies depending on the medium, but it still makes sense to call it constant by referring to the speed of light in a vacuum. Well, in this case the geophysicist is wrong and it doesn't take a genius to figure that out.

Ah, the persecution complex. It's all a global conspiracy, I guess?What you didn't mention was that he's been shown to be dishonest. For example, from his paper here:
Carbon Dating Undercuts Evolution's Long Ages | The Institute for Creation Research Nope.Uniformatarianism does not ' assume' anything like that at all.Catastrophism was an assumption, before studying the rocks. Uniformatism was a conclusion, after studying rocks. From Message 470
The magic Flood was thus the assumption. They studied the evidence and came to the conclusion that there was no global magic flood.Now, for what Uniformatism actually is:From GARY, M., MACAFEE R (JR), and WOLF, C. L. (eds), 1977. Glossary of Geology. American Geological Institute:

quote:

---

Uniformitarianism:
(a) The fundamental principle or doctrine that geological processes and natural laws now operating to the earth’s crust have acted in the same regular manner and with the essentially the same intensity throughout geologic time. And that past geologic events can be explained by phenomena and forces observable today; the classic concept that the present is the key to the past. The doctrine does not imply that any change has a uniform rate, and does not exclude minor catastrophies.; The term was originated by Lyell (1830), who applied it to a concept by Hutton (1788). Cf. catastrophism. Syn: actualism: principle of uniformity.

​

(b) The logic and method by which geologists attempt to reconstruct the past using the principle of uniformitarianism.
  —Glossary of Geology

---

The term uniformatarianism thus refers to uniformity in the array of processes operating on the Earth across time. Some processes are very slow. Some are very fast. And everything inbetween. Geologists can recognize those processes in the rock record. Uniformatarianism certainly does NOT assume slow processes.Baumgardner told an untruth about one of the basic principles of geology. He has an agenda.He knows that if he publishes that research in peer-reviewed journals, his untruths and terrible 'science' will be pointed out. By people who actually know something about the subject. The experts. That's why he didn't publish that research in peer-reviewed journals.Now, can you get back to the topic of the thread?Edited by Pressie, : Added last sentencesEdited by Pressie, : No reason given.