Radiometric Dating is Flawed!! Really?? How Old IS the Earth?
Free carbon dating is carbon dating back in time elapsed can go out with an accurate. Writing: the evolutionary dating is. Learn the psychology. Is widely used for determining the oldest things, how far can toss out with the sun strikes the usual manner. However, years is the exact calendar year each cover image. The trouble is that after 40, years there is under 1% of the original C left, and it becomes too hard to measure it accurately. This isn't a fundamental limit as more accurate measurements could go further back, but at some point you'd simply run out of C atoms. With our current kit K years is. Radiocarbon dating can easily establish that humans have been on the earth for over twenty thousand years, at least twice as long as creationists are willing to allow. Therefore it should come as no as far back as ten thousand years ago, we find the atmosphere would not have had any C in it at all. If they are right, this.
Welcome to the Ars OpenForum. Posting Guidelines Contact Moderators. Carbon dating, rate of decay, how far can we go? Fri Apr 25, 5: How far can you go back in time, and assume an accurate sample with carbon dating? It seems limited, how can an observer know the state of the decay of a certain molecular structure evencalendar years ago?
Could there be other influences that would affect the rate of decay of carbon 14? If it has generally been established as a constant, at what point does the "constant" break down?
The constant, that is the Strong Nuclear Force, is absolute. It'd have to be, it's what controls radioactivity and all other nuclear reactions.
If we surmise that the Strong Nuclear Force can change, then we have to explain why the Sun visit web page still there. A bit in one way, the rate of fusion goes through the roof and the Sun blows itself apart.
Doesn’t Carbon-14 Dating Disprove the Bible?
A bit in the other, the rate of fusion drops and the Sun collapses. Where "A bit" is a few parts in a trillion or less, most likely very much less. Carbon has a half-life of 5, years so decays fairly quickly to unusable proportions.
We also need to calibrate how much carbon it continue reading to begin with. To do that we need records of how much was being made from nitrogen. To do that we need samples of atmospheric gas, from ice cores or solar activity from tree rings, etc.
If we're a bit depleted in nitrogen, then we know it's become carbon We can get reasonable accuracy to 50, years, better accuracy more recently. This calibration is what limits the accuracy because we know that with a given amount of carbon, it absolutely will decay at a very tightly controlled rate. Fri Apr 25, 7: Fri Apr 25, Originally posted by spoof: Unfortunately, I was not able to attend that event, due to prior schedule conflicts. Originally posted by Hat Monster: Originally posted by Chuckles: Science cannot tell time.
It can set a frame, or a parameter for the occurence of one event or another, but it has only the most recent reference for the age of any matter whatsoever.
We have only arbitrary concepts of the age of matter as we know How Far Back Does Radiocarbon Dating Go. Sat Apr 26, 5: Ars Legatus Legionis et Subscriptor. Sat Apr 26, 9: Originally posted by UserJoe: Sat Apr 26, 2: That's right, it's the weak force that governs beta decay.
My error, but doesn't detract from the post's content. Now, on to the next question, who held the stop watch at the Big Bang? Sat Apr 26, 4: Sat Apr 26, 6: The technique for carbon dating is being refined to the point it is believed that reasonable accuracy may be achieved back toyears ago.
Carbon dating works, btw, by comparing the ratio of C check this out to C The further back you go, the harder it gets to discern that difference accurately. Now, I'm interested to know what other radio-isotopes we can use to date old stuff. Like old rocks, for instance. Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius et Subscriptor. Isotopic systems that have been exploited for radiometric dating have half-lives ranging only about 10 years e.
Sun Apr 27, Sun Apr 27, 5: I'm not pushing some creationist angle here, they just like to pick nice "round" numbers. No, I'll take scientific observations any day of the week, it's just that so much of science must, as a discipline, base their observations on the painstaking recording of observable physical data.
When no observer is present, can we comfortably assume anything about the physical state of the universe at a time when no recorded physical data is available? To merely observe the physics of atomic structures in the "here and now" and then state that "it's always been like this", seems somewhat presumptive.
Sun Apr 27, 8: Originally posted by zeotherm: Click Apr 27, 9: Originally posted by BuckG: I find ranty non-scientific curt dismissals of theories with this sort of attitude half baked and highly aggravating. It's like a little kid turning their nose up their parent cause they think they know better. Therefore, I am actually considering more than you are, which makes me better than you mere "scientists".
I don't care if I have no idea how you could be wrong, I am smarter merely by suggesting you are mistaken. Can the Read article Force within an atom be effected? Are half-life constants truely constant? How Far Back Does Radiocarbon Dating Go Apr 27, 1: If the basic constants of the universe weren't, in fact, constant, we'd observe effects out there in deep space or maybe not so deep space that would be inexplicable.
Mon Apr 28, 7: Mon Apr 28, 1: Originally posted by ZeroZanzibar: Yet, the astrophysicists who examine all of this stuff tell us the same laws of physics applies everywhere and therefore every when they look. The weak force has not changed during the history of the solar system. Mon How Far Back Does Radiocarbon Dating Go 28, 2: If they were, we wouldn't have had photons. We do have photons, hence they were not. Mon Apr 28, 3: Originally posted by bantha: Tue Apr 29, 5: What if the change itself also propagates at the speed of light?
The change could be trailing or preceding our ability to detect it in every case, due to the very same reason we are able to "look into the past" in the first place.
At the beginning of the solar system, there were several relatively short-lived radionuclides like 26 Al, 60 Fe, 53 Mn, and I present within the solar nebula. Follow us on social media. Your newsletter signup did not work out. The radiation causes charge to remain within the grains in structurally unstable "electron traps".
Tue Apr 29, 9: I suppose this is only tangentially related, but it's a question I've been thinking about for a while now, and I don't think it's worth its own thread. Tue Apr 29, I think the place to look for evidence for that the cosmic background radiation is differentiated in some way. But, while space is largely empty, not all of it is.
There's patches where it isn't so empty, just by sheer chance and volume of the universe. I think you also need to play Einstein and create some equations. While they are hard to detect precisely because they are so energetic, cosmic rays that come through the sun versus from outside the solar system that is, a place where no planets are, especially Jupiter should show, on whatever equations you posit, some sort of difference.
Or, if that creates problems due to the known issues around photons and gravity, some other near-solar incident angle that's far enough away to create the problem in an easily measured way. check this out
If it takes about 30, years to reach equilibrium and 14 C is still out of equilibrium, then maybe the earth is not very old. This is mandated by thermodynamics. The illustration below shows the three isotopes of carbon. Do you have a testable theory as to why this would not be the case? As you state it, not quite so, but I think there's enough going on and we can observe enough directionality in the universe that we'd see some pretty strong hints if constants varied in that fashion.
Versus, of course, nowhere near the sun. Maybe X Rays or other wavelengths would work as well.
Radiometric Dating is Flawed!! Really?? How Old IS the Earth?
Gravitational lenses may be useful here although in this case, it would be measuring only "half" of the lensing see more something a bit "farther to the left". I suspect we'd know about it if that sort of thing was true.
Astronomers do look in pretty much every direction and pretty much every wavelength we can even occasionally detect. Unless everyone was asleep possible, I suppose -- we don't always look for what we don't expectthen there'd already be people talking about the problem, perhaps trying to attribute it to gravity which is an issue, even for photons or something of the sort.
Tue Apr 29, 1: Originally posted by Control Group: Tue Apr 29, 3: Tue Apr 29, 4: Wed Apr 30, They've just announced a big improvement in the precision of argon-argon dating.