Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Question About the Universe
JonF
Member (Idle past 158 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 162 of 373 (740636)
11-06-2014 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by Coragyps
11-04-2014 8:57 PM


This might need a different thread, but could you give an example or two of archaeological discoveries that correspond...etc.? Atheist little me thought it was fairly cool when C13 dating on the Tunnel of Siloam matched up with historical dating. Do you have any more examples?
Juping in here if I may... the Siloam tunel dating was actually two methods, 14C on a leaf in the plaster to provide an upper bound on the age and U-Th disequlibrium dating on a stalactite to provide a lower bound.
Of course the classic example is Ar-Ar dating of the eruption of Vesuvius in 79 AD. That's a bit of a tour-de-force since so it is so recent; I've heard it said that no other lab in the world could have done it. url=https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=we... Dating into the Historical Realm: Calibration Against Pliny the Younger[/url].
One of my favorites is dating bread from Pompeii via 14C. Alas the paper is behind a paywall at Nature: "Radiocarbon measurements on samples of known age".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Coragyps, posted 11-04-2014 8:57 PM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by Percy, posted 11-06-2014 2:43 PM JonF has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 158 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 280 of 373 (741490)
11-12-2014 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 277 by zaius137
11-12-2014 4:01 PM


Re: sn 1987A -- simple math distance calculation
There is no measurable 14C in those items. The RATE Group screwed it up. As explained by Dr. Bertshe, who is an expert in the field. But you don't care.
RATE's Radiocarbon - Intrinsic or Contamination?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by zaius137, posted 11-12-2014 4:01 PM zaius137 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by zaius137, posted 11-12-2014 8:51 PM JonF has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 158 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 282 of 373 (741499)
11-12-2014 6:39 PM
Reply to: Message 281 by edge
11-12-2014 6:25 PM


Re: sn 1987A -- simple math distance calculation
No significance at all, assuming for the sake of argument that the effect is real. Which is still questioned.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by edge, posted 11-12-2014 6:25 PM edge has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 158 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 307 of 373 (741558)
11-13-2014 8:06 AM
Reply to: Message 283 by RAZD
11-12-2014 8:01 PM


Re: sn 1987A -- simple math distance calculation and radioactive decay
... how come there is measurable amounts in diamonds, fossils and coal seams?
Because 14C can be created from these materials when they are subject to radiation, as occurs with carbons rods used in fission generators to control the rate of reactions.
No doubt that's a contributor, but the major contributors in the RATE studies were background and other contamination. They worked hard at eliminating one and only one source of contamination. RATE's Radiocarbon - Intrinsic or Contamination?.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by RAZD, posted 11-12-2014 8:01 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 158 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 308 of 373 (741560)
11-13-2014 8:12 AM
Reply to: Message 285 by zaius137
11-12-2014 8:51 PM


Re: sn 1987A -- simple math distance calculation
There is no measurable 14C in those items. The RATE Group screwed it up. As explained by Dr. Bertshe, who is an expert in the field. But you don't care.
The person he criticizes is John R. Baumgardner a geophysicist. You have to be kidding..
Baumgardner who has no training or experience in 14C dating and avoidance of contamination and how to measure background, yeah, that's him.
Went threw that citation of yours but did not find a significant argument against 14C in diamonds.
Of course you didn't. Morton's demon prevented you from seeing what was there.
Otherwise I will view your opinion as just an opinion
It's the opinion of a recognized expert in the field, and backed up by evidence. {ABE} I'm not sure if you are acknowledging Dr. Bertsche's (I spelled his name wrong earlier) expertise. He is a physics PhD from UC Berkeley, has conducted many 14C dating studies, and is currently at the Stanford Linear Accellerator. Oh, and he's a comitted evangelical Christian.{/ABE}
14C was detected, does that stament hurt that much?
Oh, certainly 14C was detected. That 14C has no significance as to the age of the samples, as Dr. Bertsche demonstrated.
Edited by JonF, : No reason given.
Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by zaius137, posted 11-12-2014 8:51 PM zaius137 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 318 by zaius137, posted 11-13-2014 12:00 PM JonF has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 158 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 309 of 373 (741561)
11-13-2014 8:19 AM
Reply to: Message 302 by zaius137
11-13-2014 2:19 AM


Re: Absurd assumptions are misleading
That is a ridiculous claim You might as well say all the surrounding rocks are radioactive, not just background but radioactive enough to cause contamination.
Background radiation is everywhere, including in rocks and coal and diamonds.
The issue is whether there's enough to cause the observed results. guesses by someone as ignorant as yourself are not evidence.
It seems that in Baumgarrdner's studies in-situ production probably isn't the major source. Contamination and background are. remember this?
quote:
Diamond is difficult to combust. The RATE samples apparently required modifications to the normal procedure [1], presumably higher combustion temperatures and longer combustion times, likely increasing the sample chemistry contamination. The samples were reportedly pitted and may have been subjected to previous analyses and to unknown contamination. Nevertheless, RATE’s five deep-mine diamond samples had radiocarbon levels only slightly above background (0.01 to 0.07 pMC after background subtraction), while the seven alluvial samples ranged from 0.03 to 0.31 pMC after background subtraction.
Subsequently, the RATE team inserted diamond directly into an ion source, eliminating the sample chemistry, and measured much lower radiocarbon values, between 0.008 and 0.022 pMC, with a mean value of 0.014 pMC, apparently with no background subtraction [6]. This much lower value for unprocessed diamond provides strong evidence that their processed diamond samples had been contaminated, most likely by the modified sample chemistry.
Taylor and Southon have also measured unprocessed diamond, finding a similar range of 0.005 to 0.03 pMC without background subtraction. They interpret this result as their instrument background, primarily due to ion source memory. Their ion source current varied, unintentionally, over about a factor of two, perhaps due to crystal face orientation or to conductivity differences between samples. The oldest 14C age equivalents were measured on natural diamonds which exhibited the highest current yields [4]. This important observation provides evidence about the source of the radiocarbon.
If the radiocarbon were intrinsic to the sample, there would be no change in the radiocarbon ratio with sample current. The 14C, 13C, and 12C would change in unison. However, if the radiocarbon were coming from ion source memory or elsewhere in the accelerator, it should give a count rate independent of ion source current. Normalizing the radiocarbon count rate to the ion source current, which is predominantly 12C, would result in higher radiocarbon content for lower source currents, as observed. This data provides clear evidence that at least a significant fraction of the radiocarbon detected by Taylor and Southon in diamond measurements did not come from the diamonds themselves and thus could not be intrinsic radiocarbon.
The lower values for unprocessed diamond and the current-dependent behavior find no explanation in Baumgardner’s intrinsic radiocarbon model. But these results fit well with the Taylor and Southon evidence that instrument background (specifically ion source memory) is material-dependent, with diamond exhibiting significantly less ion source memory than graphite. The radiocarbon detected in natural, unprocessed diamond measurements seems to be nothing more than instrument background.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 302 by zaius137, posted 11-13-2014 2:19 AM zaius137 has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 158 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 310 of 373 (741562)
11-13-2014 8:21 AM
Reply to: Message 305 by Pressie
11-13-2014 2:42 AM


Re: Baumgardner and his 14C Lies of Omission
It's not contamination. It's fresh C-14.
Depends on your definition of contamination. If "contamination" is non-age-significant 14C, then it's contamination.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 305 by Pressie, posted 11-13-2014 2:42 AM Pressie has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 158 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 312 of 373 (741568)
11-13-2014 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 292 by zaius137
11-12-2014 10:17 PM


Re: Baumgardner and his 14C Lies of Omission
I am not aware that 14C in rocks has that much relevance for dating them, I thought Potassium Argon dating was predominate for rock dating.
OT, but it's hard to even find a lab to do K-Ar dating any more. By far the most widely used method over the past few decades is U-Pb concordia-discordia. Ar-Ar dating is also widely used. It's based on the decay of 40K but is much more robust than plain K-Ar dating.
K-Ar is beloved by creationists because it is possible to get incorrect results, especially when committing deliberate fraud a la Snelling. We do know that most K-Ar results are accurate because of their consilience with other more robust methods. But real scientists have moved away from K-Ar.
Your ignorance is showing.
Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by zaius137, posted 11-12-2014 10:17 PM zaius137 has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 158 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 313 of 373 (741570)
11-13-2014 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 306 by Pressie
11-13-2014 3:18 AM


Re: sn 1987A -- simple math distance calculation
Or the people who tried to carbon date diamonds and coal and expect a reliable date for the formation of these are either idiots or want to mislead people.
Baumgardner isn't an idiot. He's done some good and significant mainstream work. His study of diamonds and coal is well outside his area of expertise, and it's possible (although I doubt it) that he did his best to produce an honest study but failed because of his lack of expertise.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 306 by Pressie, posted 11-13-2014 3:18 AM Pressie has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 158 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 320 of 373 (741603)
11-13-2014 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 318 by zaius137
11-13-2014 12:00 PM


Re: sn 1987A -- simple math distance calculation
Good post. very substantive. Cheers!
You omitted the part where you acknowledge that your claims have been destroyed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 318 by zaius137, posted 11-13-2014 12:00 PM zaius137 has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 158 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(3)
Message 321 of 373 (741604)
11-13-2014 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 317 by zaius137
11-13-2014 11:58 AM


Re: Baumgardner and his 14C Lies of Omission
There's no prediction that 14C would be found in diamonds in barely detectable amounts.
We know that some 14C forms in diamonds because they are exposed to radiation, as are all things. I doubt that anyone including Baumgardner has calculated how much 14C would be expected in the diamonds they measured, because nobody knows what radiation exposure they have had. COuld go either way. But you (and RAZD) are ignoring the fact that Dr. Bertsche's article destroys Baumgardner's claims without reference to intrinsic 14C in the sample, no matter what the source of that 14C is. There was no measurable 14C in the diamond samples, as Dr. Bertsche demonstrated that the evidence indicates the detected 14C was all contamination and background.
However, we do know some things:
  • When Baumgardner eliminated the preprocessing of the diamonds, the amount of 14C detected went way down by an order of magnitude of more.
  • When Baumgardner eliminated the preprocessing of the diamonds, the amount of 14C detected was about the same as reported by other researchers.
  • The other researchers reported more 14C detected when source current increased, which would only be the case if the 14C detected was instrumental background rather than 14C from the sample.
Therefore:
  • The vast majority of the 14C reported originally by the RATE group was introduced during sample preparation.
  • The remaining 14C reported by the RATE group is instrumental background.
  • No problem for mainstream science and dating.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 317 by zaius137, posted 11-13-2014 11:58 AM zaius137 has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 158 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 324 of 373 (741611)
11-13-2014 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 316 by NoNukes
11-13-2014 11:43 AM


Re: sn 1987A -- simple math distance calculation
Until we can identify a cause, we can postulate that the variations are produced by some phenomena that might have had greater magnitude in the past.
Yes, but we can put some tight boundaries on the possible extent of such variation from astrophysics, and from the heat/radiation problem. See Heat and radiation destroy claims of accelerated nuclear decay.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 316 by NoNukes, posted 11-13-2014 11:43 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 325 by NoNukes, posted 11-13-2014 1:36 PM JonF has not replied
 Message 333 by RAZD, posted 11-13-2014 7:55 PM JonF has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 158 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 350 of 373 (741761)
11-14-2014 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 349 by NoNukes
11-14-2014 11:53 AM


Re: C-14 in diamonds isn't native.
I kind of like the groundwater hypothesis too, especially in the case when dissolved 234U decays to insoluble 230Th. Do you happen to know if the 230Th and its daughter elements produce neutrons that could drive the 14N-14C transition?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 349 by NoNukes, posted 11-14-2014 11:53 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 352 by edge, posted 11-14-2014 12:33 PM JonF has not replied
 Message 354 by NoNukes, posted 11-14-2014 1:30 PM JonF has not replied
 Message 357 by RAZD, posted 11-14-2014 5:25 PM JonF has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 158 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 362 of 373 (742093)
11-16-2014 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 361 by RAZD
11-16-2014 7:39 PM


Re: sn 1987A and constant decay rates
40k - > 40Ar is electron capture. I don't know if all electron captures are the same.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 361 by RAZD, posted 11-16-2014 7:39 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 363 by NoNukes, posted 11-16-2014 10:15 PM JonF has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 158 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 366 of 373 (742103)
11-17-2014 8:15 AM
Reply to: Message 365 by zaius137
11-17-2014 3:21 AM


Re: C-14 in diamonds is native.
This is actually a non-issue for the diamonds in the Baumgarder experiments as those turned out not to have any C-14 in them at all.
I did not see a citation for your above statement
Try Bertsche and thre previous messages in this thread.
From your reference:
quote:
Note that the authors emphatically do not attribute the higher 14C counts, as Bertsche claims, to ion source memory contamination.
Bertsche mentioned ion source contamination and several other possibilities for the results. Baumgardner fail.
quote:
The simplest explanation for the trend in the eight samples in part B is that it is associated the presence or absence of the silver powder. Precisely how the silver powder might be producing the observed trend is not clear
Now there's a knee-slapper! Both the presence and absence of silver powder cause the effeect, therefor the effect is caused by silver powder!
I'm getting a copy of the Taylor and Southon paper. Bet Baumgardner's misrepresenting it.
Here are diamond fragments measured for calibration... note the ages.
quote:
Six fragments cut from a single diamond exhibited essentially identical 14C values — 69.3 0.5 ka—70.6 0.5 ka BP. The oldest 14C age equivalents were measured on natural diamonds which exhibited the highest current yields. http://www.sciencedirect.com/...rticle/pii/S0168583X07002443
Those are not ages. Those are, as explicitly stated, age equivalents. From samples measured by other valid methods as over 100 Ma. For the specific purpose of monitoring measurement background.
Current instrumentation is incapable of measuring 14C in samples that are really that old (much less 100+Ma), and there's pretty good reason to believe that the range of valid ages will be extended to there or far beyond.
Edited by JonF, : No reason given.
Edited by Admin, : Fix quote.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 365 by zaius137, posted 11-17-2014 3:21 AM zaius137 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 368 by NoNukes, posted 11-17-2014 10:37 AM JonF 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