Can carbon dating change if Star and Planet conditions change?

page: 1
5

log in

join

posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 10:35 PM
link   
If a planet moves near and far from radiation or other energy from local Star(s) is carbon dating unaccurate? Has EA*RTH moved, hmmm in the past and can this cause for non accurate carbon dating. Because if so.... some may have co existed more then considered by the intelligent mind collective??? ALSO, what if Star(s) have different periods where their energy increases radiation exposure to carbon dated materials? Just something to consider ATS


transmitted
VENUS

LOVE LIGHT ETERNIA
NAMASTE*******
edit on 12/22/12 by Ophiuchus 13 because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 10:49 PM
link   
It's entirely possible.

The currently accepted theory though is that the C-14 production level has been roughly stable throughout history, and we can estimate the age of organic materials with a ~10% either way error.

Do you have any evidence to suggest otherwise?



posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 10:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Dispo
 


No otherwise evidence.. Just felt its kind of wierd so much current intelligent collective EA*RTH data suggest accurate timelines carbon 14 related many of EA*RTH learned from and it may be unaccurate teaching. Sort of conscious blocking the collective here from accepting more truth of EA*RTH beings above and below ground existence within the Sol system. Do you think there is another more accurate way to find correct time dated data Dispo?



posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 11:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Ophiuchus 13
 


There are several more accurate methods of age dating, each of them tends to verify C-14 dating except in local disruption areas e.g. nuclear test sites. The "oldest" we can go with C-14 is about 50,000 years due to its short half life of ~5,000 years.

The reason C-14 can be made inaccurate by your hypothetical scenario of exceptional radiation is that C-14 is produced from nitrogen and neutrons, and neutrons can be released as radiation.

Other methods, notably uranium decay (to lead) do not involve external factors so cannot be affected by excess radiation and such.

Even if C-14 dating could be invalidated, it would only affect relatively recent things, such as our early history e.g. the earliest known bronze tools, the earliest known agricultural site etc. "Facts" like the age of the world could not be disputed using your theory.



posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 11:15 PM
link   
Absolutely! C14 dating is at its very best an approximate dating technique. More carbon in the air will result in a skewed date because all animals and vegetation will consume more carbon. Read the following for a good explanation of how off it can be.



"Radiometric dating methods do not prove millions of years. Radiometric dating was not developed until the early twentieth century, by which time virtually the whole world had already accepted the millions of years. For many years creation scientists have cited numerous examples in the published scientific literature of these dating methods clearly giving erroneous dates (e.g., a date of millions of years for lava flows that occurred in the past few hundred years or even decades). In recent years creationists in the RATE project have done experimental, theoretical, and field research to uncover more such evidence (e.g., diamonds and coal, which the evolutionists say are millions of years old, were dated by carbon-14 to be only thousands of years old) and to show that decay rates were orders of magnitude faster in the past, which shrinks the millions of years to thousands of years."

Answers Book
edit on 12/22/2012 by NoSoup4U because: Fix Link



posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 11:22 PM
link   
Btw, I apologise for being nosey, but I've had a quick look through your profile and you seem to be searching for a scientific justification for Christianity.

A while ago (read: years) I saw a video on ATS where they made a convincing argument for the biblical "7 day creation" theory. It was something to do with gravity being able to distort time, and if we accept the big bang theory and calculate the gravitational time distortion accounting for the mass of the universe etc etc, it turns out that if we work out the length of each day, it would come out with the 7 days being the currently speculated age of the universe in years.

I've had a quick look for it but I can't find it. I'll have a proper look later if you're interested, or if another member remembers the video I'd appreciate it if they could post it.



posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 11:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Dispo
 


I see so all information is still based off of radiaton exposure and there are many variables from my observation that can offset the data. Again like if the Star somehow begins to emmit massive energy rays lole cme but concentrated in 1 area of planet. That concentrated area of exposure may cause more c14 detection within exposed carbon materias being analyzed. And those materials may be related to creatures that may have roamed in that specific area where condentrate radiation made contact. But other carbon dated ,materials may not have recieved that much exposure if any at all and may ne dated at different times on timeline, making teaching data of EA*RTH in this area of interest questionable.
edit on 12/22/12 by Ophiuchus 13 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 11:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Dispo
 


Scientific justification of ENLILITE RELIGONS OF OLD EA*RTH.. Tis all
edit on 12/22/12 by Ophiuchus 13 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 11:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Ophiuchus 13
 


Again, while C-14 dating is susceptible to solar radiation variation, other methods of radioactive dating are not. These other methods tend to support the theory that C-14 production levels have been constant throughout recent history (i.e. the last 50,000 years, which is all C-14 dating is used for) as they tend to back up C-14 dating's estimate on age.

In a nutshell:
- C-14 dating is vulnerable to solar radiation interference and local things like volcano eruptions, nuclear tests etc
- Other methods of age checking are not e.g. uranium decay
- Alternative methods tend to support C-14 dating

Also I'm not trying to be funny with you, I'm just trying to help. Whatever you're trying to do, I think that video might help. It enthralled me as a teenager, but I haven't been able to find it to fact check it properly as an adult.
edit on 22-12-2012 by Dispo because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 11:33 PM
link   
Why do you spell Earth as EA*RTH ?

It's distracting from what ever point you are trying to.. make/observe?

if I need to be some sort of magician, don't worry about it.



posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 11:41 PM
link   
reply to post by NoSoup4U
 


Thanks NoSoup4U, for adding more information to the thread. I have been trying to figure out a way to find the dating outside the norm. As of now 1 has been seeking a constant factor but from EA*RTH that basically changes with the time of the planets age and as well manages to bond in the organic materials. As of now its in the direction of water related since just as many living things recieve sun exposure to get the c14 exposure also many living things injest and come in contact with water.. Maybe a water chem is being overlooked that can better tell time. Im no specialist in the field but maybe someone observing can see more of what I meen and figure it out.

NAMASTE*******



posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by winofiend
Why do you spell Earth as EA*RTH ?

It's distracting from what ever point you are trying to.. make/observe?

if I need to be some sort of magician, don't worry about it.


In respect to EA THE LORD OF EARTH AND WATER.......

NAMASTE*******



posted on Dec, 22 2012 @ 11:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Ophiuchus 13
 


Radiometric dating is assumed to be accurate because we can measure the decay rates of isotopes and from that extrapolate the time that the remains of an organism has taken from the moment it stopped taking in the radioactive isotope.

In the case of Carbon dating, what is measured is the ratio of the Carbon 14 isotope to other Carbon isotopes. As time goes by, Carbon 14 decays into Nitrogen 14 through beta decay and the half-life (the time it takes for half of it to decay) is around 5,740 years.

Radioactive decay is a very constant and ordered process and it is assumed that, once an organism has stopped breathing in Carbon 14 from the atmosphere, that there is little that can affect decay rate, and so a time after death (with an approximate error size of plus or minus 40 years per 5,740 years) is easily established from looking at the C14 ratio.

There are, however, some recent findings that call into question the regularity and orderliness of C14 decay. There was an indication that radioactive decay rates vary with Solar Neutrino output and also there has been some question in regard to the constancy of the speed of light. A faster speed of light in the past would indicate a hotter and more radiative universe and this would skew readings significantly, although it would cause other issues with physics which have not been noted.

edit on 22/12/2012 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 12:10 AM
link   
reply to post by chr0naut
 


chr0naut, you make some good points that 1 wont object to but 1can see you also see the point im making here which is there is a chance the data is possiby flawed. 1 understands this is this spheres way of time location, but are we learning truth w/ so much room for error or just comming close to it even if major data is missing. Thanks for taking time to help Brighten 1z mind


NAMASTE*******



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Ophiuchus 13
 


That would make earth much much older, and everything else. Much older cycles lost.



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Unity_99
reply to post by Ophiuchus 13
 


That would make earth much much older, and everything else. Much older cycles lost.


Yes the planet may be more elder but 1 wont fully deny EA*RTH current data for some may have more accurate data but cannot or will not share for some reason Unity_99. Also the cycles of evolution and creation 1 feels the data exist but we may have to obtain it thru gaining maturity as we spiritually advance thru life and death experiences within existence. And eventually the closer to the source we get with positive spiritual activties more information is shared from source intelligence on all. So dont lose hope my friend
just think the deceptive have a partial data base and that can place them in the most deceptive positions and keep them controlled. Hence unclear data teachings like EA*RTH has no honeycommed chambers holding liquids or life, its just thick magma only. Keeping above ground data slowed why below more data may exist. Thanks for stopping thru


LOVE LIGHT ETERNIA*******


edit on 12/23/12 by Ophiuchus 13 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 11:05 AM
link   
We learned in Archaeology that salinity effects the decomp of organics thus showing a variation of thousands of years, this most sites' results are inaccurate.

docs.google.com...:H6ywP3cZNhAJ:isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic881205.files/Ten%2520years%2520of%2520compound-specific%25 20radiocarbon%2520analysis+archaeology+seawater+dating+organic&hl=en&gl=ca&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjHhpAix5zFpNhtG3MDEoL-fMMimvT5kglUfDinZjAKyTryvZa91E0JrK XG_nAqa6asjSkJvPLVdtS46Jizz-JyB8IENBLAwAV4UJ1GIEPuQ3klNjm2nZLfTNA3UsOtwTnHVeSC&sig=AHIEtbR1BoJ1g6dP4zDjxQJHyz7HQ7u7AQ



posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by dianashay
We learned in Archaeology that salinity effects the decomp of organics thus showing a variation of thousands of years, this most sites' results are inaccurate.


[Color=cyan]
This unfortunately dianashay, is what 1 feels needs to be updated somehow to possibley find more accurate truth of 1 or more intelligent EA*RTH species which could without 1 being naive help relations between these potential species as of now. Earlier in the thread 1 tried to present other possible methods to get accurate carbon or other dating of materials. Water was the method due to it constantly coming in contact with flora and fauna of EA*RTH.

But now another method 1 feels may bring forth even more accurate data may be to look at EA*RTH interior for data. Because just as c14 is related to Star SOL radiation energy exposure to flora and fauna on this sphere from above maybe the're is a type of radiation trace being emitted from EA*RTHs core (inner star mechanism) that is also being embedded into flora and fauna from below? And due to it being closer then SOL and also containing similar radiation exposure attributes from within maybe a better type of timeline detection can be designed here.

Please excuse if I got a little outta box and thanks for taking time in the thread...

NAMASTE*******
LOVE LIGHT ETERNIA


edit on 12/23/12 by Ophiuchus 13 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 03:33 AM
link   
i dont know anything about carbon dating or anything like that.
i dont know how acurate and reliable carbon dating is.

something to read up on.





new topics
top topics
 
5

log in

join