Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Request for Carbon-14 Dating explanation
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 17 of 74 (106643)
05-08-2004 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by BobAliceEve
05-08-2004 7:25 AM


Re: More Questions
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
GIGO at work, it sounds like. What do you think the average lifetime of a carbon dioxide molecule is in our atmosphere?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by BobAliceEve, posted 05-08-2004 7:25 AM BobAliceEve has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 18 of 74 (106688)
05-08-2004 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by BobAliceEve
05-08-2004 7:25 AM


Re: More Questions
When math tells you something that does not jibe with reality, it is not reality that is at fault. Either the formula was incorrect or the assumptions made going in to the forumla were incorrect.
The hurricane prediction software was 'tested' by the first huricane strength storm south of the equator earlier this year, and the program crashed.
Some could take this as evidence that hurricanes do not exist below the equator.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by BobAliceEve, posted 05-08-2004 7:25 AM BobAliceEve has not replied

  
BobAliceEve
Member (Idle past 5395 days)
Posts: 107
From: Seattle, WA, USA
Joined: 02-03-2004


Message 19 of 74 (106977)
05-10-2004 1:21 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by crashfrog
05-08-2004 7:33 AM


Absolutely
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by crashfrog, posted 05-08-2004 7:33 AM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by NosyNed, posted 05-10-2004 4:10 AM BobAliceEve has replied
 Message 21 by PaulK, posted 05-10-2004 5:00 AM BobAliceEve has not replied
 Message 23 by Coragyps, posted 05-10-2004 10:39 AM BobAliceEve has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 20 of 74 (107022)
05-10-2004 4:10 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by BobAliceEve
05-10-2004 1:21 AM


Dismissive?
CrashFrog writes:
It would be a little easier to "take it into account" if you were to actually provide the reasoning, equations, and caluclations you used to arrive at that figure, don't you think?
Where in that do you find anything that constitutes outright dismissal?
There are a couple of mathematicians here. Some others probably have enough to review your work.
However, without seeing it no one can comment they can only guess. I don't understand exactly what your plan is.
Having been on the receiving end of some number of "breakthrough" papers by amateurs I know it will be hard for you to get any attention. It may be that, if you do have something, getting it vetted here is your best bet.
Good luck.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by BobAliceEve, posted 05-10-2004 1:21 AM BobAliceEve has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by BobAliceEve, posted 05-10-2004 12:23 PM NosyNed has replied
 Message 25 by BobAliceEve, posted 05-10-2004 12:51 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 21 of 74 (107025)
05-10-2004 5:00 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by BobAliceEve
05-10-2004 1:21 AM


Re: Absolutely
You are aware that the production rate of C14 is not a constant and depends on the cosmic ray flux ?
Scientists have dealt with this issue by investigating objects of known date (such as the investigation of varves at Lake Suigetsu).
How do you propose to deal with this issue in your model ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by BobAliceEve, posted 05-10-2004 1:21 AM BobAliceEve has not replied

  
Melchior
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 74 (107046)
05-10-2004 7:16 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by BobAliceEve
05-08-2004 7:25 AM


Re: More Questions
I would really like a closer explanation to how you were doing that 'experiment'.
I sort of expected an answer of 0 years with a fresh sample of athmosphere.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by BobAliceEve, posted 05-08-2004 7:25 AM BobAliceEve has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 23 of 74 (107090)
05-10-2004 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by BobAliceEve
05-10-2004 1:21 AM


Re: Absolutely
The reference I gave in post #9 of this thread gives 14C levels back to 50,000 years ago, but I don't think that will help you much. I'm pretty sure in mentions current rate of formation of 14C in the atmosphere: current rate of decay is the same it's always been - half of what you've got every 5730 years.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by BobAliceEve, posted 05-10-2004 1:21 AM BobAliceEve has not replied

  
BobAliceEve
Member (Idle past 5395 days)
Posts: 107
From: Seattle, WA, USA
Joined: 02-03-2004


Message 24 of 74 (107112)
05-10-2004 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by NosyNed
05-10-2004 4:10 AM


Re: Dismissive?
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.
Thank you for asking, Crashfrog!! I am pleased to not be dismissed outright by you.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by NosyNed, posted 05-10-2004 4:10 AM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by NosyNed, posted 05-10-2004 1:07 PM BobAliceEve has replied

  
BobAliceEve
Member (Idle past 5395 days)
Posts: 107
From: Seattle, WA, USA
Joined: 02-03-2004


Message 25 of 74 (107116)
05-10-2004 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by NosyNed
05-10-2004 4:10 AM


General follow-up
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by NosyNed, posted 05-10-2004 4:10 AM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by PaulK, posted 05-10-2004 1:05 PM BobAliceEve has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 26 of 74 (107118)
05-10-2004 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by BobAliceEve
05-10-2004 12:51 PM


Re: General follow-up
I think we really need to have at least an outline of the model you intend to use. Obviously time to reach equilibrium won't work because it relies on a constant production rate. Using current figures is especially bad because nuclear weapons tests have produced an elevated level of C14 and because C02 emissions from fossil fuels contain almost no C14 (both these factors should be causing an unusually high decline in the ratio of C14 to C12).
It seems to me that the only way to do this is to forget modelling and instead investigate the C14 levels in samples that can be independantly dated - but this has already been done in a number of cases and I do not see that we are in a position to replicate that work.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by BobAliceEve, posted 05-10-2004 12:51 PM BobAliceEve has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 27 of 74 (107119)
05-10-2004 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by BobAliceEve
05-10-2004 12:23 PM


Dismissive?
Posts 17 and 18 were dismissive, NoseyNed. Crashfrog's (16) was not.
Sorry, I missed that. Yes, they are dismissive.
I suggest that you consider the context. Many people have seen a variety of "proofs" of this or that. These almost all of the time turn out to be junk. There may well be the 1 in 1,000 that have some merit but when one hasn't seen any particular one the best bet is that it is one of the junk ones.
An addition part of the context is that a very large number of very smart people have worked with this. To suggest that you've found something truely revolutionary would be at odds with history.
Untill you show your work there is nothing for anyone to judge on. Untill then each individual is entitled to make a quick judgement call on the likelyhood of you haveing anything worth considering.
The comment about a model disagreeing with reality makes a lot of sense. There are too many real world measurements that have worked for a model that says they didn't happen to be given much credance.
As you might have seen in other threads the measured variation in C-14 production isn't more than 10%. For a first cut calculation you may ignore the variation and assume it is constant. To see this look for tree ring dating and varve counting and the correlation between counted dates and C-14 dates. These are found in:
Age Correlations and an Old Earth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by BobAliceEve, posted 05-10-2004 12:23 PM BobAliceEve has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by BobAliceEve, posted 05-11-2004 4:10 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Justin Clark
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 74 (107120)
05-10-2004 1:13 PM


Mistake
I do apologize for the "nitrogen" bomb. My idea was to bring up the effects of the hydrogen bomb, but I was not paying enough attention as I should have.
JonF: I am greatful for your explanation and I have read it. I asked the questions again to try and get more people with different opinions.
Why has so much hostility towards Bob. From what I have read he is the only one who has gone beyond simply reading a book or research paper to try and find answers. If we are really concerned about truth then should not we be trying to help him and not condem him because it may cause us to question what we believe? If he is still working on it he should not show us until he has it finished. I was wanting to gain knowledge with peaceful unbias conversation, but it seems as if that could never be the case. I thank you very much for your time.

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by PaulK, posted 05-10-2004 2:00 PM Justin Clark has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 29 of 74 (107130)
05-10-2004 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Justin Clark
05-10-2004 1:13 PM


Re: Mistake
I think people are being critical of Bob becuase he hasn't done enough reading before trying to go beyond it. It is no good going off and producing a model that doesn't take all the relevant facts into account. A model has to accurately model the relevant processes to be of any use.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Justin Clark, posted 05-10-2004 1:13 PM Justin Clark has not replied

  
Justin Clark
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 74 (107143)
05-10-2004 3:09 PM


Yes sir, I agree. The point I am trying to make, however, is that not one person has offered any help. I think that is too soon to be judging his competence. Does he have a valid point? I certainly cannot answer that question nor can anyone else at this point. But he does deserve the courtesy of being heard before being dismissed. From reading Bob's post it was my understanding that his proposal was going in a somewhat different direction. He is arguing the age of the atmosphere not of fossils. I can see where he might have something to go on. For whatever that is worth.

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by NosyNed, posted 05-10-2004 4:23 PM Justin Clark has not replied
 Message 34 by PaulK, posted 05-10-2004 8:02 PM Justin Clark has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 31 of 74 (107178)
05-10-2004 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Justin Clark
05-10-2004 3:09 PM


Help?
The point I am trying to make, however, is that not one person has offered any help.
I'm willing to help with the limited abilities I have. I'm very sure that others with more ability will be glad to help.
However, he has to post what he has so far before anyone can do a darn thing.
Remember, Justin, for a number of people here this is not a new thing. It is just the umpty umpteenith time that someone has claimed some wonderful discovery. Almost all, nearly every single one of them is confused crap. What bet would you be willing to make on this one?
When we see something a more respectful comment may be possible. The most likely outcome is within a few hours there will be a dozen huge holes poked in the calculations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Justin Clark, posted 05-10-2004 3:09 PM Justin Clark has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024