|
Author
|
Topic: Radioactive carbon dating
|
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5548 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: 02-18-2006
|
Re: Carbon Dating is False because...
Carbon dating is false. The scientists are not taking into account that heat speeds up the amount of Carbon which would obviously alter it's age according to the scientists So you believe that physicists are all stupid and failed to take something really simple into account? (Might as well adopt nator`s style)
|
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5548 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: 02-18-2006
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: A Glitch In Carbon Dating
What makes you think that I made these things up. If the guy on this same page said the same thing, wo which Fallacycop replied to?
You must be dislexic. I didn`t agree with you. I didn`t disagree either. I asked you if you think physicists are stupid. You didn`t answer my question. So, do you think that physicists are stupid?
|
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5548 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: 02-18-2006
|
Re: A Glitch In Carbon Dating
AND YOU DIDN'T REPLY TO ME.. I have know Idea who you were replying to
I was replying to message 19 by ArchArchitect. would that be you?
And ofcourse I don't think that physicists are stupid. There are very smart ones out there, or the scientific world would not have been where it is today.
Good. So what makes you believe you can walk in here and act like you are in a kindergarden telling people how there is this really basic thing about carbon dating that physicists have not been taking into account. Hint: this is bullshit you`ve been forcefed, and you`re not even aware of it.
|
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5548 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: 02-18-2006
|
Hey crashfrog, I found something interesting. You know what it is? It's a part of the statement I wrote. Here it is: "when you asked if he/she thought that physicists were stupid. And ofcourse I don't think that physicists are stupid. There are very smart ones out there, or the scientific world would not have been where it is today." You know what I notice about this? I mentioned physicists twice. We can all clearly see who the real liar is...
But crash frog wasn`t replying to that post. 
|
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5548 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: 02-18-2006
|
Re: Helpful Carbon Dating Link
You know, you're starting to sound like you're making this up as you go along.. And you are sounding like you don`t know the least thing about science. Go read some more and come back when you actually are ready
|
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5548 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: 02-18-2006
|
And if I really am wrong, about Carbon Dating, then how is it my fault? wouldn't it be my science teacher's fault?
No it wouldn`t. If you are the one posting here. you are the one reponsible for it. you should double check your sources. Hint: the links you posted are biased.
|
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5548 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: 02-18-2006
|
|
Message 82 of 221 (396246)
04-19-2007 11:12 AM
|
Reply to: Message 81 by AdminNosy
04-19-2007 11:04 AM
|
|
Re: Opened but.....
Let's have the old hands help keep things on topic so no admin involvment is needed. As far as I can tell, this thread was mostly on topic. I really don't understand why it was closed to begin with.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 81 by AdminNosy, posted 04-19-2007 11:04 AM | | AdminNosy has not replied |
|
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5548 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: 02-18-2006
|
|
|
Message 83 of 221 (396250)
04-19-2007 11:27 AM
|
Reply to: Message 71 by Juraikken
04-19-2007 12:07 AM
|
|
really? i thought that the c-14 dating actually has that carbon CLOCK running after the thing dies, so basically it IS amount really. It really is proportion. The fact that you insist that it is amount shows that you don't really understand carbon dating well enough to be lecturing scientist about how reliable you think the method is.
are not visualizing it? depending on the atmosphere and where he died, he coulda had a c-14 disease in his body that could have depleted the c-14 in his body before he died THUS giving it a LARGER age than its suppose to have...
What the heck is a c-14 disease? I'm sure you are not a stupid person, but saying things like that is making you sound like a lunatic. Why don't you try doing your homework and learning a little more about the subject before posting? Most of your claims about how C-14 dating works have been outrageously inacurate.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 71 by Juraikken, posted 04-19-2007 12:07 AM | | Juraikken has not replied |
|
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5548 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: 02-18-2006
|
Re: Question:
So then the amount of heat is directly proportional to the speed of the atoms?
Actually, in an ideal gas, the internal energy is proportional to the square of the velocity of atoms. There is no such thing as the amount of heat inside an object. heat is defined as some forms of energy in transit -- energy being transfered from an object to another, either by direct contact(conduction), or by readiation, or by convection(which happens when there is also mass being transfered).
|
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5548 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: 02-18-2006
|
|
|
Message 96 of 221 (396871)
04-23-2007 12:50 AM
|
Reply to: Message 93 by Zhimbo
04-21-2007 10:15 PM
|
|
Re: Question:
Got to be carefull when talking about thos things
Bingo. Well, it might be better to say the heat *is* the energy of the moving atoms, and the temperature is proportional to the speed of the atoms.
Actually, it might be better to say that the internal energy is the energy (kinetic + potential) of the the atoms. The temperature isn`t proportional to the speed of the etoms either. In an ideal gas, the temperature is proportional to the internal energy, but that will not be necessarily true in more realistic systems.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 93 by Zhimbo, posted 04-21-2007 10:15 PM | | Zhimbo has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2