Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1

The first statement I will take as a statement of your opinion. Although I disagree with it and know that you are wrong, I won't take that on.The second statement simply shows your ignorance of the topic. No one has made the claim that the half life of C14 needs to be or is calibrated. While all radioactive determinations are based on knowing radioactive half life, we all know that knowing that value alone is not sufficient to use radiometric dating. Everyone participating in this discussion, with the possible exception of you, but in particular including RAZD, and including everyone who is serious about objecting to C-14 dating knows why such dates are calibrated.I look forward to the post in which you are right about something significant and relevant.

The structures that determine the physical properties of materials are generated by the orbital electrons and the motions of the atoms in a material. The motions of atoms are directly affected by temperature.The forces that determine decay rates, with some exceptions that are not relevant for this discussion, are intra-nuclear and have nothing to do with the motions of the atoms. Accordingly the temperature does not affect the operation of spontaneous nuclear reactions like decay.Again this is something that has been verified by experiment and discussed to death here. I'll point out the past discussion if you are really interested.To answer the question you actually asked. Electrostatic forces, gravitational forces, and the weak and strong forces are not affected by temperatures likely to have existed after the formation of the solar system.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

"No one has tried it??"What is that even supposed to mean? Physicists have been investigating nuclear decay for a bit over a century now. They sort of have some inklings of the paths that nuclei take to change into different nuclei. It is pretty precisely known how much energy you get when a potassium 40 atom decays to an argon 40 atom. Are you seriously trying to say that an argon atom can just decide that it wants to Hoover up that amount of energy and a positron and become potassium? I think it might need a Dyson instead of a Hoover.

The word is dendrochronology, so you haven't impressed me yet with your grasp of the topic or your level of education in this matter. Which, curiously, is totally unsupported by objective empirical evidence, like the evidence that actually shows your assertion to be false. Referring back to unsupported assertions doesn't make them any more valid, nor does it give the impression that you know what you are talking about.Care to discuss the actual evidence ... or do you want to keep playing childish games.For instance, how would you test the tree ring data from the Bristlecone pine "Methuselah" to show that it is false or error prone?Surely you must have some rational reason for your claim ... if it is serious and not just wishful thinking ...Enjoy

I think that it would have depend on a lot things which we don't know with certainty. Cooling takes more energy, and using liquid hydrogen as a proton source might work. (But it would be under these conditions.) I also need to know if K-ar and ar-K with atomic number 39 can work both ways.Dyson is low-powered, but I don't which way you applied it. If Ar-K is more normal, then it would take less power. K-Ar is more likely with other atomic numbers.Then there is what NoNukes say about Ar-40 being a 10 size alpha particle. Does this make a difference?I can't solve these problems. I know someone who can, but unfortunately his past is too checkered for him to go public with it.Edited by OS, : No reason given.Edited by OS, : Need to specify conditions.

My general impressions of dendrochronology is that it is just stupid. You can't find the age of a tree by counting rings, but you can find the half-life of C-14 with a Geiger counter. And thus you carbon date the tree instead.

Which just demonstrates that you don't know what science is.Sadly, for you, this is a well documented field of science with several universities offering Ph.D. degrees in the field. Science is done by the scientific method, and this certainly qualifies --- it is not up to the opinion of an ignorant childish person, one who is apparently ignorant of the field and didn't have the courtesy to even make a cursory review before opening their mouth and demonstrating their ignorance. Curiously, I have no need to do so, because that is a hopelessly uninformed and false statement from the start. Obviously you know nothing about dendrochronology or its relation to 14C ...Once again, all you have demonstrated - thus far - is a rather amusing level of massive ignorance, and a propensity to collect or make up fallacious information which you regurgitate as if it would demonstrate that you are somehow an expert on a field you can't even spell correctly.Perhaps you should consider suing your teachers for gross negligence and fraud.And finally I notice your failure to provide any response to my question: Not up to it?So far all you have done is waste bandwidth.Enjoy

As the saying goes, you aren't even wrong!

Curiously your "general impressions" do not have any effect on reality, ... other than as a demonstration of the reality that you are woefully ignorant of dendrochronology ... False. False. False.Care to try again?Enjoy.

You don't get it do you?

Incorrect in two out of three.You can find the age of a tree by counting rings. Different climatic events, such as volcanoes, leave distinctive rings, and these correlate with the correct ages.You can't find the half-life of C14 with a Geiger counter. All you can do is determine, from the beta decay, the amount of C14 present.But you are right, in that you can carbon date individual tree rings. That is what has been done to establish the calibration curve.Care to try again, on some subject about which you actually know something?

Tree rings don't tell you how old a tree is? They spread out with age. Sorry, but that one is true.Secondly, you made the mistake of saying a Geiger counter is underpowered for finding C-14's half-life. Shame on you.So what is the problem with carbon dating tree dust. This has been done to the dead sea scrolls.Do you know what animal life does to C-14 by the way?

You still haven't revealed to us how many C14 samples you have submitted in your career.My guess is 0.Further, my guess is that virtually your entire (un)knowledge of the radiocarbon method comes from creationist websites.

Curiously I have absolutely no idea what you mean by "spread out with age" ... other than making stuff up instead of learning the facts.I begin to wonder if you even know what a tree ring is, let alone how to measure\count it ... I am not aware of a single thing you have said that even approaches truth obliquely ... Amusingly all a Geiger counter can do is measure the rate of radioactivity it is exposed to, and you need a bit more data than that to calculate the half-life. Anything organic and under ~50,000 years old can theoretically be measured for the content of 14C ... but that is not your previous assertion. So now you are moving the goalposts. Typical. Yes, but I'd be amused to hear your version ...EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : clrty

No, my knowledge about it comes from a medical pdf, and some physics stuff which is in depth enough. I know that the human body actively expels Carbon-14, but I can't find the documentation. If it ia anything to you, I don't believe it proves the age of the earth, or of anything other than a piece of paper.Edited by OS, : No reason given.