Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Screw 300 million years old! Who built it?

page: 9
58
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 12:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Alien Abduct
 


The carbon14 dating method is only good to 60,000 years.
How it works is based on the half-life of the carbon 14 isotope. It assumes the rate of decay hasn't changed over time in different places. (The rate of decay changes at different places on earth). There is also the issue that carbon is not existent in everything.




posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 12:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Xertious
 


Sources please?

I know how carbon 14 dating works......

EDIT TO ADD: I missed the part where the article stated that the method used to date the rock was 'carbon 14 dating'. Could you quote that part for me?

-Alien
edit on 8/13/2012 by Alien Abduct because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 12:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Alien Abduct
 


I never suggested it was carbon-14, but that was what was being talked about, which I said only is potentially reliable up to 60,000 years.
Also, you said you know about carbon dating, what are you having trouble with what I said?



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 12:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by MysterX

You can carbon date the carbon on a rock though.

In the case of a meteorite, the carbon crust built up on it as it burns through the atmosphere is datable...besides, you don't need carbon to date rock, there's many other radiometric dating methods commonly used to date rocks.

This is how we get to estimate the Earth is 4.5 Billion years old (+/- 5% or so).




True.... But they said they carbon dated it to 300 million... There are many other elements that have a longer half life for measuring longer periods of time, but carbon dating a meteorite to 300 million years is impossable, AND if it was a meterorite then that means it is not of earth...



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 12:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Xertious
 


Also I think plus or minus 60,000 years is pretty accurate IF the scale we are dealing with is 300,000,000 years.... I just thought I would point out the obvious.

-Alien



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 12:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Xertious
 


Let me repost this for you because apperently you missed it.....



Originally posted by XeroOne
Perhaps the screw isn't embedded in anything. The 'rock' itself could have been a man-made object that became fossilised, and the screw was part of it.
Seriously flawed dating techniques is the most likely explanation, though. How many people have ever questioned the supposed infallibility of carbon dating?
edit on 11-8-2012 by XeroOne because: (no reason given)


Please show me where credible scientists or any scientist for that matter that say that the carbon dating method is "infallible".
Answer that one.

Also please show me how (with credible sources) the carbon dating technique is in your own words a "seriously flawed dating technique"
.


-Alien



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 12:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Alien Abduct
 


No, I think you mis-understand. After 60,000 years of carbon 14 decay, there is too little carbon 14 to calculate the age of the carbon, and as it gets older, the amount gets too random amounts to have a realistic base value to compare with.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 12:38 AM
link   
oops...
edit on 8/13/2012 by Alien Abduct because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 12:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Alien Abduct
 


Ok, science for you, you can look this up yourself or find a science teacher to bug, but it should be basic high school science.
Carbon 14 has a half life of around 5,000 years. That means after 5,000 years has passed, half the carbon 14 has decayed into another isotope. This goes on until this amounts gets exponentially lower until it reaches a point where, the carbon 14 has half and halfed itself to an amount that is too tiny to make any sense from. Remember, you're measuring dead items here. Things aren't going to increase in carbon 14 it will just decay away until there is none left.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 12:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Alien Abduct
 


Our posts are getting out of sync, and you're quoting me as saying things somebody else has said.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 12:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xertious
reply to post by Alien Abduct
 


No, I think you mis-understand. After 60,000 years of carbon 14 decay, there is too little carbon 14 to calculate the age of the carbon, and as it gets older, the amount gets too random amounts to have a realistic base value to compare with.


Although I have asked several times I have yet to see you site any sources to back up your claims...... I mean I understand what you are attempting to convey, I just think it would seep into my brain a little better with some sources


-Alien



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 12:46 AM
link   
I've honestly Googled this in every word combination I can think of. Now, it's true... I'm on the verge of being an old man and my tech skills - once highly impressive - are now getting to the point where I need to occasionally ask third graders to help me make my phone behave... I'd truly love to see somebody find a corroborating source for this story - but my search has been fruitless.

~Heff



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 12:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Alien Abduct
 


Its high school science at its simplest. :/
but ok

en.wikipedia.org...
science.howstuffworks.com...
Hell, just google it for christ sake. www.google.co.uk...

Seriously tho, its basic stuff you should of been taught at school, radioactive decay. If you're really asking for sources and citations, you saying you know about carbon 14 dating its obviously a lie and that you are just trying to clutch on straws at a failing point you tried to make. Or that your education was that lacking and you really don't understand science.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 01:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xertious
reply to post by Alien Abduct
 


trying to clutch on straws at a failing point you tried to make.



What point? The point in asking you to back your claims with a source? Please tell me what "failing point you are referring to?

First of all the OP never claimed that the "rock" sited in the OP was dated with the carbon 14 dating method. Second of all you haven't addressed several points that I have presented to you on at least two occasions.

ETA
I will site them again...

reply to post by Xertious
 


Let me repost this for you because apperently you missed it.....



Originally posted by XeroOne
Perhaps the screw isn't embedded in anything. The 'rock' itself could have been a man-made object that became fossilised, and the screw was part of it.
Seriously flawed dating techniques is the most likely explanation, though. How many people have ever questioned the supposed infallibility of carbon dating?
edit on 11-8-2012 by XeroOne because: (no reason given)


Please show me where credible scientists or any scientist for that matter that say that the carbon dating method is "infallible".
Answer that one.

Also please show me how (with credible sources) the carbon dating technique is in your own words a "seriously flawed dating technique"
.


-Alien
edit on 8/13/2012 by Alien Abduct because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 01:18 AM
link   
As you can see if you read your own quotes from my above post.... You thought that they dated the rock with the carbon 14 method because apparently you didn't read the OP source or maybe your education failed you in it's attempt at teaching you reading comprehension.

But the fact is that you attempted to point this carbon dating method as a flaw in the OP's source of dating this 300 million old rock. You would be correct if in fact they did use the carbon 14 method. But they never said they used such a thing.......

This is what I am addressing.

I'm not defending the OP as correct, but you better come correct if you want to try and insult me with your "basic highschool education" crap.

-Alien



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 01:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Juggernog
 


Correct!



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 02:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hefficide

I've honestly Googled this in every word combination I can think of. Now, it's true... I'm on the verge of being an old man and my tech skills - once highly impressive - are now getting to the point where I need to occasionally ask third graders to help me make my phone behave... I'd truly love to see somebody find a corroborating source for this story - but my search has been fruitless.

~Heff


Heff, im in the process of emailing and drilling down the original source and hopefully we should have some more information regarding the scientists or some form of paper that was published.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 02:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Andromedabound
reply to post by cerebralassassins
 


Interesting thread. Always enjoy reading about ancient tech.

As far as the Earth having a monopoly on the concept of 'peace' you have to be fu#king kidding?
For all we know we are the most greedy, blood thirsty planet in our galaxy.

You will probably believe a false flag alien invasion, and welcome with open arms the tyranny that follows. Good luck with that.


soz for the quick offtopic post.

Actually ill be proven right when SHTF regarding so called peace white dove loving non terrestrial visitors or should i say intruders. As for how blood thirsty are we as a species, well obviously we are, since our main food consumption consists of vertebrae and invertebrate. Chances are a microorganism on cell level would most likely be used as a first wave knock out punch contrary to the scifi films of flying laser craft burning and leveling everything in its path.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 03:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by cerebralassassins
reply to post by Raist
 


I see your point, however, as person who lives within the deep web


i stopped reading here. lol. you're someone with secret access to the "deep web" and you feel the need to tell people publicly that you have access to it. I hope the other agents of the deep web are more reliable and less attention seeking than you, then.... otherwise your top secret deep web is screwed!
edit on 13-8-2012 by ceetee because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by ceetee

Originally posted by cerebralassassins
reply to post by Raist
 


I see your point, however, as person who lives within the deep web


i stopped reading here. lol. you're someone with secret access to the "deep web" and you feel the need to tell people publicly that you have access to it. I hope the other agents of the deep web are more reliable and less attention seeking than you, then.... otherwise your top secret deep web is screwed!
edit on 13-8-2012 by ceetee because: (no reason given)


lulz..nothing secret about scuba diving in the web...






top topics



 
58
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join