It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Carbon-14 dating Errors

page: 3
8
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 08:25 PM
link   
a reply to: OperationBlackRose



But they are still today finding living T-Rex blood cells and marrow.

No. They are not.
What may be collagen (a protein) has been recovered from some fossils, but collagen is not living. Nor is it blood cells. Nor is it marrow. It is a chemical compound.

edit on 11/15/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 08:29 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar
And possible neutrino flux of radioactive decay should be just thrown out the window? Oh, and btw, just so anyone I'm discussing this with is aware: This means nothing to me in terms of the church or creationism. It's about radioactive carbon dating methods and their reliability, and the manipulateable nature of time, perhaps….


edit on 15-11-2014 by tetra50 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 08:42 PM
link   
a reply to: tetra50



And possible neutrino flux of radioactive decay should be just thrown out the window?

Probably so.

Scientists of the Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt have now carried out new measurements and have published their results in the journal "Astroparticle Physics". For three years, they checked the activity of samples with 36Cl in order to detect possible seasonal dependencies. Whereas the US-Americans had determined the count rates with gas detectors, PTB used the so-called TDCR liquid scintillation method which largely compensates disturbing influences on the measurements. The result: The measurement results of PTB clearly show fewer variations and do not indicate any seasonal dependence or the influence of solar neutrinos. "We assume that other influences are much more probable as the reason for the observed variations", explains PTB physicist Karsten Kossert. "It is known that changes in the air humidity, in the air pressure and in the temperature can definitively influence sensitive detectors."

Meanwhile, the data of another measurement series − this time for the strontium isotope 90Sr − have been evaluated and submitted for publication. Here too, even sophisticated analyzing methods give no indication of seasonal variations. It can thus be assumed that an influence of solar neutrinos on the radioactive decay does not exist − at least not in the order of magnitude postulated.

www.eurekalert.org...
edit on 11/15/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 09:45 PM
link   
Yes, it's always tacked on at the end of such articles that :

at least not in the order of magnitude postulated.
, which means to me it's still possible that it happened, was observed, on more than one occasion in more than one testing facility, as first reported.

No one in any scientific community from acheology to medicine wants to admit that this might be possible, for many reasons, so it doesn't surprise me that this has largely been tossed out the window….except for the ever so slight disclaimer at the end. Which means to me, at least, since I always see that tacked on at the end, that it may have, in fact, happened. The problem is, if it really did, regardless of the current observed "magnitude," any seasonal variation, or variation due to absolutely much of anything at all, since we consider these elements to be the most stable, reliable, observeable and dependable decayers at a steady rate, regardless of anything at all, I repeat, variation like this possible, especially seasonal, can add up….for it could have happned, then, at a larger rate at a different time when it wasn't caught.

Kind of like the ten days or so they just threw under the bus and pretended didn't exist anymore when they switched the calendar from the Julian to the Gregorian. The thing is, that seemingly small amount of time, over the course of time, can mean great differences.

I can pull up referenced material that says differently than Phage's, but I will leave this argument until something noteworthy is reported by the scientific community about it being oberserved again. I have a hunch it's going to come up again.

This is a study conducted in 1969, and I am having trouble tracking down the results, but this is always, and still the case with neutrinos, which are still virtually undetectable as it's a massless particle that travels at the speed of light which we don't yet have accurate instrumentation, to this day, to truly measure, but this catches me, every time:


The proton-proton reaction is the slowest in the proton-proton chain, and hence it determines the overall rate at which energy is produced. Unfortunately the rate of the reaction is so slow that it cannot be measured in the laboratory; the ``weak'' force that governs this reaction is the same force that determines the interaction of neutrinos with matter.
www.sns.ias.edu...

So, we shall see….
edit on 15-11-2014 by tetra50 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 09:50 PM
link   
a reply to: tetra50




which means to me it's still possible that it happened, was observed, on more than one occasion in more than one testing facility, as first reported.

To you maybe. But what it really means is that the effect seen by Fischbach et. al. was due to instrumentation errors.

Not really. Have you followed up on Fischbach? He's been pretty quiet about it for the past 4 years.
What other facilities? Using what instruments?

edit on 11/15/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 10:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage
Read my ETA. That other study. The truth about neutrinos and our as yet inability to detect them, to predict their behavior, et al, says to me we haven't seen the end of this…

We breeze through with our scientific theories, but when you go to the base, oftentimes, there are still questions about certain things making theoretical certainties we've relied upon for the theories not so certain. It never surprises me no one wants to admit it. But these questions about neutrinos, have, in fact, been around a long time.



posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 10:55 PM
link   
So this is the newest wiki info I can track down, and actually I'm having a very hard time tracking down much info. on this readily available:


The solar neutrino problem was a major discrepancy between measurements of the numbers of neutrinos flowing through the Earth and theoretical models of the solar interior, lasting from the mid-1960s to about 2002. The discrepancy has since been resolved by new understanding of neutrino physics, requiring a modification of the Standard Model of particle physics – specifically, neutrino oscillation. Essentially, as neutrinos have mass, they can change from the type that had been expected to be produced in the Sun's interior into two types that would not be caught by the detectors in use at the time.


So this is of 2002 that this "discrepancy" existed, but it's now been resolved by modifying the Standard Model of particle physics….so now neutrinos really do have mass, but they change into two types that cannot be measured nor caught by current detectors.


different energy neutrinos are produced by different nuclear reactions, whose rates have different dependence upon the temperature; in order to match parts of the neutrino spectrum a higher temperature is needed. An exhaustive analysis of alternatives found that no combination of adjustments of the solar model was capable of producing the observed neutrino energy spectrum, and all adjustments that could be made to the model worsened some aspect of the discrepancies.[2]


Very interesting, indeed. Then we have the resolution to the problem:


different energy neutrinos are produced by different nuclear reactions, whose rates have different dependence upon the temperature; in order to match parts of the neutrino spectrum a higher temperature is needed. An exhaustive analysis of alternatives found that no combination of adjustments of the solar model was capable of producing the observed neutrino energy spectrum, and all adjustments that could be made to the model worsened some aspect of the discrepancies.[2]


However there were three other tries at a resolution of detection of neutrinos (whether they had mass) and their behavior (changing to other forms of neutrinos: muons, taus,and electron neutrinos in mid stream) in transit, and the percentage arriving to pass through the earth from the sun.

Absolutely none of that, though, talks about their constancy nor what their behavior does to carbon dating, in the long run. And the so called resolution of this problem only came from one institution, was not repeated, and has been taken as gospel, with very little attempt to verify. Or that at least can be found online, unless it just says they are of no consequence….or perhaps very little. There's always that tag attached….



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 12:34 AM
link   
Oh this thread makes my head hurt.
For the OP, you do know that radio carbon calibration curves are re done on a regular basis, as new bench marks are identified. And you do know that an accurate calibration bench mark, in the form of a 50k year old lake in Japan , has recently refined the calibration curves.
This lake has been in existence for nearly 50,000 years, and every fall leaves fell into the cold oxygen poor waters and were preserved by a layer of mud from the next spring melt. So by taking a core sample you can count the layers backwards to the desired point in time, sample the organic matter , a perfectly preserved leaf, determine it's C14 content and compare it to a sample being dated.
Also there is the old adage, one date is no date, so dates are backed up by several methods , such as U/Th , Ar/Ar, OSL, TL, protein racemerisation?, stratigraphy, faunal assemblage densities as compared to known climatalogical profiles and known geological processes.
An aquaintence of mine was imvolved with the last, in an archeological context. He is a geologist that specializes in alluvial/fluvial soils. He was called in to consult on an archeological dig, in the deserts of so cal. The site had yielded dates in excess of 17k, which is significant in the context of new world archeology, based on C14, obsidian hyd. OSL, stratigraphy, and the faunal collection compared to the local climate profile
He found a recognized and datable layer of volcanic ash, and from there it was a matter of counting the alluvial soil layers backward till he reached the artifact bearing layers. His work confirmed the the other dating methods, for this controversial site.
I forgot to add dendochronology for more recent , bronze age, sites.
edit on 16-11-2014 by punkinworks10 because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-11-2014 by punkinworks10 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 12:59 AM
link   
a reply to: punkinworks10

As a follow on post, I have just found this paper on a redating of a gravettian site that has yielded a wide range of radio carbon dates.





New Hydroxyproline Radiocarbon Dates from Sungir, Russia, Confirm Early Mid Upper Palaeolithic Burials in Eurasia




Sungir (Russia) is a key Mid-Upper Palaeolithic site in Eurasia, containing several spectacular burials that disclose early evidence for complex burial rites in the form of a range of grave goods deposited along with the dead. Dating has been particularly challenging, with multiple radiocarbon dates ranging from 19,160±270 to 28,800±240 BP for burials that are believed to be closely similar in age. There are disparities in the radiocarbon dates of human bones, faunal remains and charcoal found on the floor of burials [1], [2], [3]. Our approach has been to develop compound-specific methods using High Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC) to separate single amino acids, such as hydroxyproline, and thereby avoid the known human contamination on the bones themselves. Previously, we applied this technique to obtain radiocarbon dates of ~30,000 BP for Sungir 2, Sungir 3 and a mammoth bone from the occupation levels of the site [4]. The single amino acid radiocarbon dates were in good agreement with each other compared to all the dates previously reported, supporting their reliability. Here we report new hydroxyproline dates for two more human burials from the same site, Sungir 1 and Sungir 4. All five hydroxyproline dates reported are statistically indistinguishable and support an identical age for the group. The results suggest that compound-specific radiocarbon analysis should be considered seriously as the method of choice when precious archaeological remains are to be dated because they give a demonstrably contaminant-free radiocarbon age.




journals.plos.org.../journal.pone.0076896



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 10:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: OperationBlackRose



But they are still today finding living T-Rex blood cells and marrow.

No. They are not.
What may be collagen (a protein) has been recovered from some fossils, but collagen is not living. Nor is it blood cells. Nor is it marrow. It is a chemical compound.


Did you actually research the subject? Or did you just disagree because that is you default?
Living tissue has been found.

news.nationalgeographic.com...
www.smithsonianmag.com...
www.nbcnews.com...
www.youtube.com...

And the sad part is that any scientist, even tenured scientist, lose their jobs when they find scientific proof contradicting any part of evolution.

losangeles.cbslocal.com...
edit on 16-11-2014 by OperationBlackRose because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 10:53 AM
link   
a reply to: OperationBlackRose


Did you actually research the subject?
Yes. Yes I did. Did you, or do you just ignore things that contradict your point of view? None of those three sources said anything about living tissue being found. They say that something that is probably collagen was found and that things that looked like blood cells were found.

Your source:

This drives Schweitzer crazy. Geologists have established that the Hell Creek Formation, where B. rex was found, is 68 million years old, and so are the bones buried in it. She’s horrified that some Christians accuse her of hiding the true meaning of her data. “They treat you really bad,” she says. “They twist your words and they manipulate your data.”
www.smithsonianmag.com...



CSUN spokesperson Carmen Ramos Chandler told CBSLA Armitage was a a temporary hire between 2010-2013 and worked as an electron microscopy technician. She could not comment on the lawsuit as university officials had not yet received the complaint.
losangeles.cbslocal.com...

Sort of silly to claim that he was fired over the collagen thing since it is pretty well established that it has been found and how it was preserved. It does not require a young Earth.

edit on 11/16/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 10:58 AM
link   
Dallas Love Field was dated in 1967........the ramp concrete was found to be 1300 years old.....



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 11:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: OperationBlackRose
And the sad part is that any scientist, even tenured scientist, lose their jobs when they find scientific proof contradicting any part of evolution.

losangeles.cbslocal.com...


More BS and lies from the creationist camp. His contract was not extended (he's not even a scientist, he's a lab technician) due to overstepping his boundaries and using university funds to try and publish bad science.

freethoughtblogs.com...



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 01:14 PM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

The 'scientific community' is not really a 'community', it is a Dictatorship. Here is how it works.

You can't get a diploma or degrees if you don't believe in evolution.
If you have a diploma or degree, but publish a paper doubting evolution, you will get deliberate bad reviews, and lose your job.
After you lose your job, someone will create a 'Wikipedia' page about you, calling you a 'Creationist'.
And in the end it will be as if you never accomplished any scientific breakthrough.

Why not look up Robert V. Gentry, and actually read his Papers. If you don't read it, you are scared of what you might find. It you do read it, but still stand by the 'millions of years' and 'evolution', you are ignorant of real science.



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 01:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: OperationBlackRose
a reply to: GetHyped

The 'scientific community' is not really a 'community', it is a Dictatorship. Here is how it works.


As spoken by someone who has literally zero grasp of how scientific research is conducted or how the scientific community works. Funny how it's always people who hold magical beliefs that are contradicted by scientific evidence who pull the "science is a conspiracy!" line.


You can't get a diploma or degrees if you don't believe in evolution.


Yes you can. There's creationist scientists (as in scientists who are creationists, not creationist "scientists" like over at the discovery institute) who actually know how to separate their faith from their work as a scientist.



If you have a diploma or degree, but publish a paper doubting evolution, you will get deliberate bad reviews, and lose your job. After you lose your job, someone will create a 'Wikipedia' page about you, calling you a 'Creationist'.
And in the end it will be as if you never accomplished any scientific breakthrough.


Nonsense. You lose your job if your faith consistently compels you to try and publish bad science in order to try and support your faith. If you have actual evidence that contradicts evolution, let's see it. Of course you don't but that's a side point.



Why not look up Robert V. Gentry, and actually read his Papers. If you don't read it, you are scared of what you might find. It you do read it, but still stand by the 'millions of years' and 'evolution', you are ignorant of real science.


This is a lazy appeal to authority. If I want to hear an informed opinion about nuclear physics, I'll talk to a nuclear physicist, not a biologist. If I want an informed opinion about biology, I'll talk to a biologist, not a nuclear physicist. Where's his evidence? Oh yeah, he has none. Color me surprised!
edit on 16-11-2014 by GetHyped because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 02:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: OperationBlackRose
a reply to: GetHyped


"This is a lazy appeal to authority. If I want to hear an informed opinion about nuclear physics, I'll talk to a nuclear physicist, not a biologist. If I want an informed opinion about biology, I'll talk to a biologist, not a nuclear physicist. Where's his evidence? Oh yeah, he has none. Color me surprised!"

His work shows that the earth can not be millions of years old. BTW, Wikipedia is not research.
edit on 16-11-2014 by OperationBlackRose because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 02:09 PM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

You said "This is a lazy appeal to authority. If I want to hear an informed opinion about nuclear physics, I'll talk to a nuclear physicist, not a biologist. If I want an informed opinion about biology, I'll talk to a biologist, not a nuclear physicist. Where's his evidence? Oh yeah, he has none. Color me surprised!"

That tells me that you know nothing about his research. That's not an informed opinion, that is not even an opinion.

His research clearly shows that the earth can not be millions of years old. (Grant it that I studied all of his work years ago, but I actually studies his work.)



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 02:22 PM
link   
a reply to: OperationBlackRose

A physicist talking outside of his expertise is not an expert opinion. Trying to appeal to an authority who isn't actually an authority on the subject is, like, the textbook definition of the fallacy.

Would you trust, say, a medical doctor to configure a nuclear reactor?

Or a physicist to perform brain surgery?

He offers up no actual, independently verifiable evidence to support ANY of his claims. Just like yourself, he conveniently ignores the overwhelming evidence that conflicts with his personal faith. This is what's known as "intellectual dishonesty", the polar opposite of good scientific conduct:


Intellectual honesty is an applied method of problem solving, characterized by an unbiased, honest attitude, which can be demonstrated in a number of different ways, including but not limited to:

One's personal beliefs do not interfere with the pursuit of truth;

Relevant facts and information are not purposefully omitted even when such things may contradict one's hypothesis;

Facts are presented in an unbiased manner, and not twisted to give misleading impressions or to support one view over another;

References, or earlier work, are acknowledged where possible, and plagiarism is avoided.

Harvard ethicist Louis M. Guenin describes the "kernel" of intellectual honesty to be "a virtuous disposition to eschew deception when given an incentive for deception."[1]

Intentionally committed fallacies in debates and reasoning are sometimes called intellectual dishonesty.


en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 16-11-2014 by GetHyped because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 03:05 PM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

Sorry to say but it is in fact You who does not know the facts. Yes, he is a Nuclear Physicists, and was doing research on Radioactivity for Government and Defense purposes. And it is in this studies that he came across Polonium, a highly radioactive element. Is it not in a Nuclear Physicist's job description to work with Radioactive elements, and study the decay rate of such elements?

That is what his work was all about. Please, get your facts, do some research before you want to sound smart...



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 03:23 PM
link   
a reply to: OperationBlackRose

Post up his peer-reviewed research that has been independently replicated by impartial 3rd party scientists that supports his claims.




top topics



 
8
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join