Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1

It is probably because no one has tried it.

But what do cold temperatures do to those forces? Extreme cold makes metal brittle, for example.

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.

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?

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.

It doesn't change the isotope, but it does expel it. Thus it has a body half life. I know by Isotopic Labeling. Carbon-14 is put into the body and used with an MRI.Edited by OS, : No reason given.

I might be thinking fractionalization. I know Carbon-14 doesn't like water either.

Only in that, it doesn't seem to get rid of Carbon-14; I am glad I can't find that PDF, because it makes arguing how it is poisonous easier.I have yet to acknowledge accurately dated corpses though. Is it harder to gauge the carbon level of a once live thing? Then there is the issue of 12,000 years and everything has decayed. Exponential decay exaggerates a lot of ages. Linear decay would be a better approach.

It hasn't been tried, especially with proton bombardment. How would you know then?

No, you really don't. It is a thermodynamic calculation, and there is nothing to suggest isotopic concentrations don't have full lives.

Yes, it has helped, but now I don't have good reason to say dating dinosaur bones with the method is terrible. I has noting to do with the range of the method-- I think.

You thought wrong. I have done everything I can think of so far, but there are few articles on it. Doing this is quite uncommon. ??

I think it has more to do with bodily processes, but I am thinking I confused myself about results from corpses and wood.

Notice I didn't say that, but implied it. This is all shown by your quotes. Ar-40 is a stable isotope. I don't think it would be stupid to try, but it would be complicated, an it might not be as successful as with other Argon isotopes.Edited by OS, : No reason given.