Radio Active Decay not constant

[Tarski]

Yet 6000 year old carbon (1/3 the sample) should have an overly low ratio of c14 carbon remaining (Remember ~5760 half life). Where as the younger carbon 2/3 would have higher ratios of them remaining. THUS considering the whole sample as being from roughtly the same age throughs off the accuracy of the calculation because the calculation assumes that all the carbon in any given sample is roughly the same age.

???

I still don't think you get it. Let me ask you a question. Suppose I collect together, somehow, 1 mole of pure C14 created one day prior and 1 mole of C12 and mix them together in jar A. Now suppose I take a sample of pure C14 created 1 million years ago (somehow separated out from some large old sample say) and I mix it with 1 mole of C12 and put the mix in jar B.

Now I have two jars each containing 2 moles of carbon;

Jar A---a 50/50 mix of "new" C14 and C12

Jar B----a 50/50 mix of "old" C14 and C12.

Will the ratios in these jars behave differently? Will the old C14 decay sooner since it has been hanging around just waiting to decay for so long?

[Zakuska]

Apparently you don't understand the problem or the reality that Im trying to discribe to you.

To correctly model my analogy Jar B would actually have to contain..

0.50 Moles of C14 made Yesterday and 0.50 Moles of C14 made a thousand years ago (NOTE: There wouldn't be any C14 left if it was made a million years ago because it would have all disolved, but you knew that already) Plus the 1 mole of C12.

You seem to think that Carbon 14 that gets fixed in Tissues some how magically stops its ticking time bomb just because the Animal is alive, and at death all the carbon 14 it picked up starts ticking agin because the animal died. (Thats the problem with Libbys model)

0.50 Moles of the C14 made Yesterday would be starting its Chronology to self destruction at 5760.

0.50 Moles of the C14 Made a Thousand years ago has already been ticking for a thousand years and so only has 4700 years left to tike before its gone half way.

Now look at me with a straight face and tell me if you don't think there would be a difference 6000 years from now between the ratios of the 2 jars!

See this highlights the problem. Libby's mistaken model was that this calculates death date. But since it doesn't matter if the C14 is suspended in the air or Photosythesized into a plant or wether it ends up in a bone... if 21 pounds of C14 is add to our atmosphere today... 5000 years from now half of its going to be gone wether all those atoms are in a single bone, or spread out over a million miles with some still in the air. So it has nothing to do with what we are dating but the carbon Molecules themselves.

So as you can see the Ratios of the 2 Jars are very different. Not Equal as you tried to imply. And its all because we assume that all the carbon in a bone we are dating came from the exact same carbon reservior.

[Tarski]

Apparently you don't understand the problem or the reality that Im trying to describe to you.

To correctly model my analogy Jar B would actually have to contain..

0.50 Moles of C14 made Yesterday and 0.50 Moles of C14 made a thousand years ago (NOTE: There wouldn't be any C14 left if it was made a million years ago because it would have all dissolved, but you knew that already) Plus the 1 mole of C12.

Zak, can you please be clear! In your example above, is there .5 moles of C14 made 1000 years ago or not? Has some of it decayed into N14 leaving less than .5 moles of old C14? If so then it isn't .5 moles of C14 in any sense so why would you say it that way?

If there really is .5 moles of C14 (the nitrogen having been separated out), then that is a different scenario. If I am to respond I have to know which it is?

You seem to think that Carbon 14 that gets fixed in Tissues some how magically stops its ticking time bomb just because the Animal is alive, and at death all the carbon 14 it picked up starts ticking agin because the animal died.

Now see, this is confused again. The carbon 14 that gets fixed in tissues does not stop ticking. In fact, this analogy with a ticking bomb is misleading. What you fail to realize is that a C14 atom that was created 1000 years ago and has not yet decayed is exactly like one that was created one second ago. It does not become more likely to decay as time goes on. As far as decay is concerned, there is no such thing as an "old" C14 atom. They are all the same.

All that matters is ratio of C14 to C12! When the animal dies it is just that it cannot restore the ratio back to the ambient environmental ratio by exchanging carbon with the environment. There is no resetting of any atoms at all at any time.

The C14 atoms in a living animal are also decaying at the same rate but they keep getting replaced so the ratio stays pumped up to ambient levels (which are in turn pumped up by cosmic ray interaction with N)

There is nothing wrong with this model. It is your understanding. This much is very basic stuff and I have students that get this whole thing in a matter of minutes. Why are you so confused?

1) There is no resetting of any atoms at all at any time--not in a dying animal and not anywhere.

2) Old C14 atoms are exactly like new ones and are just as likely to decay and not more likely.

3) The only sense in which a clock is set when the animal dies is that it no longer takes in fresh C14 to restore levels to ambient levels so that from that point on we can see the unmolested decrease of the total C14.

4) C14 decay is going on all the time everywhere there is C14--including inside you right now. Your levels stay constant because you keep exchanging matter with the environment because you are alive and eating, pooping and breathing.

5) C14 atoms do not disolve. They are transformed into a nitrogen isotope N14.

5) Most importantly, how long it takes a C14 atom to get into an animal is totally irrelevant as long as it got there (without having changed to N14). Thus, it is only the ratio that matters at time of death.

Before death this ratio stays in close equilibrium with the environmental values.

After death the ratio will decrease not because the C14 atoms have been reset but simply because the dead animal cannot take in C14 to mess up this decrease by restoring it to ambient levels (a simple mixing differential equation provides a simple model of how this works).

Here is a little helpy help help for your brain.

Imagine modeling the popping of corn. The number of unpopped kernels decreases as a function of time which we might be able to model. Maybe it would even work as a crude clock-- but not if someone is shooting a steady stream of new kernels into the popper! We need that input to stop so we can see the simple decrease (this is analogous to the animal dying). Only after the new kernels stop getting pumped into the popper will the crude clock work.

Fortunately, the "popping" of the C14 atoms is much simpler thanks to quantum mechanics. It is just a Poisson process (for large samples).

All of this is simple, works like a charm, and is subject to errors of exactly the type described by scientists.

Does anyone else get this yet? Zak's talk of atoms being reset because the spirit leaves and his talk about how long it takes a newly created C14 atom to wander finally into an animal all the while ticking like a time bomb getting more and more likely to decay is wrong and misguided!

[FutureTwitBlog]

It would produce a much larger margin of error. Temperatures very greatly (50s to 120s) in certain areas, and, thus, we have a great margin of error because of such.

I can't answer whether there have been studies or results... probably better to ask Zak about that one. Same with the model... he'll be able to provide much better links than I can.

That's a fair answer. The reason why I asked so many questions is because this type of reasoning/research process is the type of questions you would ask in preparation for doing a scientific study on the subject. In fact, if answered fully, they would roughly lead a person to a pretty good rough outline for a journal article about the subject.

As I said before, if the current model is wrong (which it could be), I want someone to show the scientific community how to fix it. I want us to talk about fully formed ideas on here: 1) How the current model for C14 dating of objects is broken (which it could be) and 2) The implications of those errors in the model (which is something you hit upon in your last post) and 3) A new model for C14 dating that fixes those errors in C14 dating to compensate for the shortcomings of the previous model. This is the very basis of science, this kind of thought process.

I'm not going to say that the critics of C14 dating are wrong; I don't know if they're wrong or right. What I am asking for are some testable conclusions so that we can put the scientific method to work.

[Tarski]

I can't answer whether there have been studies or results... probably better to ask Zak about that one. Same with the model... he'll be able to provide much better links than I can.

Better yet, ask a trained scientist in the field. That would be much better. If you just want links like Zak just google phrases like "variable decay rate" or "Carbon 14, Jesus". You will get lots of hits.

Of course, even if you were to try to avoid creationist websites by googling less tendentious phrases, you soon see that 99% of the hits regarding radiometric dating are still creationist websites (sometimes it takes a while to realize it).

Now, let me point out that if you want to overturn the current models, you will have to understand them.

For this you will need at least the following:

1) A quantum field theoretic understanding of nuclear decay processes and nuclear physics.

2) Technical facility with the appropriate measuring instruments and associated calibration issues and data analysis.

3) Understanding of error analysis and statistics (linear regression etc.)

4) Stochastic processes. I suggest looking at the book "Markov processes: an introduction for physical scientists By Daniel T. Gillespie" to see if you are up to the task (look at about pages 400-420--you can read it on google books)

5) The math background for the physics and stochastics will be daunting--it includes real and functional analysis, advanced probability and measure theory, mathematical modeling and differential equations etc.

Unfortunately this may take several years and that is assuming one has a solid undergraduate background in science (Physics, chemistry, etc).

You certainly must understand how to think about physical and biological processes well enough to avoid the conceptual confusions so commonly displayed by Zakuska. Read my explanations--I will be glad to answer questions.

Go to a university library rather than relying on google.

[TAO]

That's a fair answer. The reason why I asked so many questions is because this type of reasoning/research process is the type of questions you would ask in preparation for doing a scientific study on the subject. In fact, if answered fully, they would roughly lead a person to a pretty good rough outline for a journal article about the subject.

As I said before, if the current model is wrong (which it could be), I want someone to show the scientific community how to fix it. I want us to talk about fully formed ideas on here: 1) How the current model for C14 dating of objects is broken (which it could be) and 2) The implications of those errors in the model (which is something you hit upon in your last post) and 3) A new model for C14 dating that fixes those errors in C14 dating to compensate for the shortcomings of the previous model. This is the very basis of science, this kind of thought process.

I'm not going to say that the critics of C14 dating are wrong; I don't know if they're wrong or right. What I am asking for are some testable conclusions so that we can put the scientific method to work.

Yes, actually, I should probably do a search on it right now... just to see how it comes up... who knows... as the calc teacher says... Stare And Get Lucky! =D. Yayz for SAGL!

[TAO]

Better yet, ask a trained scientist in the field. That would be much better. If you just want links like Zak just google phrases like "variable decay rate" or "Carbon 14, Jesus". You will get lots of hits.

Of course, even if you were to try to avoid creationist websites by googling less tendentious phrases, you soon see that 99% of the hits regarding radiometric dating are still creationist websites (sometimes it takes a while to realize it).

Chiill dude. Wait till I find the links in order to commentate on them.

1) A quantum field theoretic understanding of nuclear decay processes and nuclear physics.

Well I already know a bit about this one. A driving interest in black holes tends to lead one to knowing about this.

2) Technical facility with the appropriate measuring instruments and associated calibration issues and data analysis.

The article can provide such.

3) Understanding of error analysis and statistics (linear regression etc.)

Nearly all linear regression has a percent of error chance, which should cover what we need. But if the error chance is too big, it speaks volumes about how accurate C-14 is.

4) Stochastic processes. I suggest looking at the book "Markov processes: an introduction for physical scientists By Daniel T. Gillespie" to see if you are up to the task (look at about pages 400-420--you can read it on google books)

I've taken Chem. Didn't like it, but eh. Was getting a D in the class... yet somehow managed a 100% on the Semi-Final. Had to do with those nasty word problems...

5) The math background for the physics and stochastics will be daunting--it includes real and functional analysis, advanced probability and measure theory, mathematical modeling and differential equations etc.

I don't need to know this, I simply need a good reliable source. I don't really even need the above you listed... I just need a source.

You certainly must understand how to think about physical and biological processes well enough to avoid the conceptual confusions so commonly displayed by Zakuska. Read my explanations--I will be glad to answer questions.

Go to a university library rather than relying on google.

I have not seen you so far do a good job of answering Zak's points. On some posts, you've responded decently, but on others, you've stated he doesn't know anything. You've stated he's got to read up on things. And dismissing his posts like this won't do much in terms of convincing me. And from what I've seen, he's done a decent job at responding to your posts, so telling me what he says is less valuable than what you say seems kinda... incorrect.

[Zakuska]

Go to a university library rather than relying on google.

Better yet Tarski why not listen to the debates, correspondance and critiques of the "Scientists" who are in the field themselves.

Take for example this critique... which in a round about way explains pretty much the same thing I was trying to explain to you up above.

Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 22:57:59 -0500

From: Peter James <100735.1765@compuserve.com>

Subject: ane Ulu Burun Dendro Date

Michael Fuller wrote:

<<The Dendrochronological date for the Ulu Burun shipwreck place it just

after

1306 BCE. A scarab of queen Nefertiti (wife of Amenhotep IV/Akenaton) was

found in the shipwreck with numerous LB artifacts. This date is far out of

the sequence proposed by Walter Simmons. The website for Ulu Burun is at

http://nautarch.tamu...A/ub_main.htm>>

Strictly speaking there is no "dendrochronological date" for the Ulu Burun

shipwreck - at least not in the sense that most people might imagine.

If your house is burnt down and someone later tries to date either its

destruction or when you built it , using radiocarbon or dendrochronology,

then some very strange results could arise. Dendrochronology certainly

cannot give a date for the first event - the burning of the house, only a

terminus post quem with an unknown period of time to be subtracted from it.

Both methods date the years when particular tree rings grew. And a house

(or boat for that matter) may be burnt or sunk many years after it was

built (or even used). The dates given by radiocarbon (for wood) and

dendrochronology will of course be nearer the date of construction, but

even with timbers deliberately cut for incorporation in a structure, time

needs to be allowed for seasoning, and if bark wood is not present, then an

unknown number of years for the continuing growth of the tree after those

particular annual rings grew. These are relatively minor problems with

dating wood constructions in the ANE, where timber was reused on a massive

scale and used possibly even a number of times in different buildings.

Peter Kuniholm's work on Anatolian dendrochronology has shown this

repeatedly.

See this first Paragraph... Its talking about the same issue I was trying to illustrate for you above. Libbys original model is trying to come up with a Death date for an animal or a tree. But just like the shipwreck... we are talking about construction date for the animal (when were the particular carbon atoms incorporated into the animal) and burn / death date of the animal. To arive at these dates there is an UNKOWN amount of time from the creation of the C14 Atom in the upper atmosphere... to when the Atom was actually fixed in the bones or the trees who photosythesized it.

Throw into the mix that diet of animals or the ability of some plants to limit their C14 intake thus effecting their C14 ratios dramatically and the unkowns grow even further.

Of course ships will be somewhat different, but there are analogies to

the above caveats about timber buildings. One assumes that boats would

have been built with freshly cut timbers - purpose cut, as it were.

Still, there is always the possibility that good, ready cut timbers might

have been salvaged from an old boat simply to save time and resources.

These are unknowns, but to date the construction of a boat, or rather find

a terminus post quem for its building, then obviously the best wood to use

from a ancient shipwreck would be the timbers from which the boat itself is

made.

Given that, what do we actually have from Ulu Burun in terms of a

dendro date? There is no date for the ship as such, but for a piece of

wood found on the boat. In his article in Nature (381, p. 782), Peter

Kuniholm stated that "wood found as part of the cargo... has a last

preserved tree-ring of 1316 BC." No further detail was given, and the

sample has yet to be formally published (as far as I know). Further

information can be gleaned from informal, interim reports by Kuniholm and

others. In his 1996 newsletter he stated that the "last ring at Ulu Burun

is 1315 B.C.. I do not think that we are missing any rings on the

exterior. Since the shipwreck is a time-capsule, a date for the wood

dunnage on board helps date all the rather more glamorous cargo items from

half a doen civilizations or more."

Despite Kuniholm's confidence that there were no missing rings on the

exterior, after three years of the piece of wood drying out,

further rings were detected - actually, an additional nine, bringing the

date down to 1305 BC within his Anatolian dendro sequence.

This is, near enough, the date reported on the Ulu Burun website (1306 BC),

and it is unlikely that it will come down any further. Still, one cannot

take seriously the belief (hope) that there are no further rings missing

from the exterior, especially after this proved to be wrong from the

initial assessment. No bark has been reported present, so the truth is

that an utterly unknown number of rings may have been trimmed from the

exterior of the sample.

Turning to the sample itself, as anyone can ascertain from the Ulu

Burun website, the wood in question is "a small piece of presumably

fresh-cut firewood or dunnage". Again, the choice of words here is rather

hopeful. I burn wood on an open fire, which I collect from skips - the

best stuff available is roof timbers from the houses in this area which

were built around 1901. I daresay the rings in those timbers go well back

into the 19th century. Admittedly this is a comment from a modern urban

environment, but then many archaeologists seem to be out of touch with the

real world, be it ancient or modern. In the ancient world, even though

supplies of timber might have been more accessible (in certain countries),

wood was still a precious rescource - albeit for fuel, building, sculpture

or whatever. The best wood for construction might be well seasoned timbers

(over a few years), but the best wood for burning, as anyone who has lit a

fire knows is "rubbish" wood that has been lying around in a dry place for

as long as possible. Most green, or freshly cut wood, produces masses of

acrid, steamy smoke. If I were collecting fire-wood for a ship voyage

(presumably to be lit inside some kind of container) I would not select

"freshly-cut firewood". Apart from the difficulty of lighting it on deck,

one would end up with a very smokey barbecue. I would collect my wood

from the equivalent of ancient skips. If there are any ethnographers,

foresters, old seadogs or carpenters on the group I would appreciate

feedback to tell me whether I am talking nonsense or not. As to the

second possibility, that the wood was "dunnage", the OED definition is

"mats, brushwood, gratings, etc., stowed under or among cargo to prevent

moisture and chafing." Again, the idea that "freshly-cut" wood would be

used to soak up moisture seems silly. Any old bits of wood would do, and

the older and drier the better.

In short, whether it was used for firewood or dunnage, the Ulu Burun

wood sample was a piece of scrap wood or "rubbish". For either purpose one

does not use good wood that could be used for something else. So there we

have it. There is not a dendrochronological date for the Ulu Burun

shipwreck, but there is a date for a piece of scrap (possibly very old)

wood which was found on board. Why Kuniholm did not date an actual timber

from the ship itself I have yet to fathom.

Now lets turn to the dating itself. The most detailed report on the

sample comes from a paper by Malcolm H. Weiner, "The Absolute Chronology of

Late Helladic IIIA2", in M. S. Balmuth & R. H. Tykot (eds): Sardinian and

Aegean Chronology: Proceedings of the International Colloquium 'Sardinian

Stratigraphy and Mediterranean Chronology, Tufts University, March 17-19,

1995 (Studies in Sardinian Archaeology V - Oxbow Books), pp. 309-319.

Weiner funds Kuniholm's laboratory so has access to information from the

horse's mouth, as it were. While Weiner himself seems to be delighted with

the date, and was using it to moderate LHIIIA2 chronology, the following

facts emerge from his paper. The sample in question is of a "badly-twisted

piece of cedar, about six inches in diameter and over four feet long." As

a cautionary note Weiner cites Kuniholm (1997): "any dates from a sampling

of only two timbers must be treated with caution, especially when the wood

is cedar which can often have eccentric growth characteristics." There is

then a mysterious aside in (Weiner's) brackets: "(The other timber is not

of direct chronological relevance.)" What other timber?

Returning to the timber that has been broadcast, Weiner continues:

"The timber in question is particularly twisted and gnarled, and thus is

unable to provide a conclusive computer-generated statistical match with

the Anatolian master Bronze-Iron Age chronology, although the match (by

Student's t-score, Trend coefficient and D-score) which results in 1305 BC

as the year of the last observable ring is superior to that for any other

relevant year. The microscopic visual fit is convincing, however (Kuniholm

& Steele, per comm.). Thus there is a high likelihood that the last

observable ring represents the year 1305 BC."

Well, blind me with science! For the uninitiated the above means

that the Ulu Burun "shipwreck" date is not a proper dendrochronological

date at all, as far as I understand it. Dendrochronology is a statistical

method, which depends on having good enough samples to match patterns of

annual growth (thick and thin) against an already established sequence. In

this case we have a *particularly* poor sample, The sample was not good

enough to run it through the computer using the usual statistical tests

(such as those mentioned by Weiner). Instead it seems that it was matched

to the overall Anatolian sequence by eye ("the microscopic visual fit").

But matched, or compared, to what? It doesn't take a leap of imagination

to imagine that since the cargo of the ship contained objects from the late

14th century (such as the famous Nefertiti object) that that is where

Kuniholm's team looked for a comparison in the sequence - to use Weiner's

words, in the "relevant years". On what criteria were other years (or

centuries) deemed irrelevant? Several years after word went out that the

Ulu Burun shipwreck had been dated by dendrochronology there is still no

formal publication to judge from.

I hasten to add that as far as I know Kuniholm's dendro matching is

only reliable for Anatolian trees (pine and a few other species) and that

he does not have a sequence for this period for cedars from Anatolia. In

the case of the Ulu Burun piece of scrap wood we have no idea where it was

picked up. As an analogy that field archaeologists may appreciate, think

about the problem of dealing with a piece of undiagnostic pottery (no

handle, no rim, no decoration) which is unprovenanced. Under the

microscope a thin section might show that the fabric is very similar to

that of the Roman period, for example. But that does not mean that you

have dated that sherd scientifically to the Roman period, even though you

might have reasons to want that as an answer.

To conclude, there is no dendrochronological date for the Ulu Burun

shipwreck. Rather, an unprovenanced piece of scrap wood, so twisted and

gnarled that it cannot be subjected to the normal computer tests, has been

matched by eye (and backed up by unpublished statistical calculations) to

fit a possibly preconceived date within the sequence of completely

different species of tree. There I rest my case until a formal publication

of the result is available - when I will stand corrected and apologise if I

have misunderstood something.

Returning to Michael Fuller's post I do not, at present, see a problem

for Walter Simmons' chronology from the Ulu Burun shipwreck. Though I

don't want to enter into discussion of it, Simmons' chronology can easily

be disproved on other grounds, e.g. stratigraphy or Egyptian genealogies.

If Simmons looked seriously at the Egyptian genealogical material, for

example, he should soon convince himself that you cannot shorten chronology

by such an amount as he is trying.

On the other hand, all is not well with the conventional chronology. I

hope my comments above have not seemed too critical of the work of Peter

Kuniholm and his team. I sincerely believe that they, ultimately, have the

key to ANE chronology. I am also pleased that they the only LBA samples

from Anatolia which they have fully published certainly support a lowering

of chronology. I refer here to the result of 1101 + 1 BC as a terminus

post quem for the construction of the last phase of the Hiittite Empire

Gateway at Tille H

[ERayR]

I wouldn't characterize scientific knowledge this way. At it's very basis, science is a formal way of observing the universe over and over again, under different conditions, to see what different outputs the universe gives us back - a "parameter search", if you'd like. To the uninitiated, the barrier to understanding can seem large (especially since, for some strange reason, people seem to be scared of math), but it's really not as difficult as it seems.

It's not the "parameter search" I object to. It's the data interpretation. If the data isn't interpreted according to party line then great effort is made to get you to change or to marginalize you. That's my objection. That and the party line is expressed as immutable fact when, as we have seen, it reaqlly isn't. It is but one interpretation of the data. The battle for preeminence in the marketplace of ideas is just as viscious as the battles in the marketplace of goods and services.

[ERayR]

A well documented Phenominon in the very region the Master tree ring chronologies were taken from!

http://www.informath.org/ATSU04a.pdf

Another problem (can't find the documentation right now) is in warm climates when the moisture cycle becomes sparadic and you get dry and wet spells in a single season it could cause more than one tree ring growth per year.

[Zakuska]

Another problem (can't find the documentation right now) is in warm climates when the moisture cycle becomes sparadic and you get dry and wet spells in a single season it could cause more than one tree ring growth per year.

This could be a problem in cold climates as well. Lets say an area which because of snow pack skips a growing season all together.

[TAO]

Unfortunately wasn't able to find anything at this point, but if someone else does, feel free to post it.

[Zakuska]

Unfortunately wasn't able to find anything at this point, but if someone else does, feel free to post it.

I had posted this earlier. Perhaps we can find the primary source.

In Anatolia, junipers (the most important species used in Anatolian tree-ring work) will, in some years, not grow a ring: Newton [2004] gives examples. Such missing rings could cause statistical matching to mislead; as such, the problem is potentially serious.)

http://www.informath.org/ATSU04a.pdf

Here would be a good place to start... and what do you know... its at Joseph Smiths back woods library where he supposedly plagerized everything from!

http://projectsx.dartmouth.edu/history/bronze_age/chronobib.html

[Zakuska]

And what do you know...

Material and methods

Since juniper species are known to be problematic for dendrochronological studies (Esper

2000, Sigl et al. 2005), we mainly worked with whole stem sections from fallen trees or

remains of recently cut trees: 11 stem discs were collected in Adaba-Dodola, from which two

were planted at a known date. 11 stem discs and 26 increment cores from 13 living trees

were collected in Menagesha-Suba. The stem discs were taken from stumps with a known

felling date, between 30 and 50 cm above the ground; the two cores per tree were collected

at breast height. The diameters of the sampled trees ranged from 16 to 46 cm.

All samples were air-dried. The stem discs were sanded until grit size of 800 and the 26

increment cores were mounted on wooden holders and hand-trimmed with a Stanley knife.

From a first macroscopic inspection, distinct concentric growth bands were visible.

Tree ring widths were measured with a precision of 0.01 mm along four radii of the stem

sections, using LINTAB (RinnTec) associated with TSAP (Rinn 1996). The time series were

visually and statistically cross-dated to obtain mean tree-ring series for each juniper tree

(Cook & Kairiukstis 1990, Stokes and Smiley 1996). We estimated the age of single trees

after correction for missing rings due to sampling height. From this estimation and the

measured ring widths, we developed diameter-age relationships for each individual. Linear

regression was fitted to each of the accumulated growth curves to calculate mean growth

rates for each tree. Tree-ring chronologies for the two sites, Adaba-Dodola and Menagesha-

Suba, were constructed following a standard dendrochronological protocol: a 30-year spline

was fitted to the single tree-ring records to remove any age-related trend in the series. Treering

indices were then produced by dividing each of the original tree-ring widths by the value

of the fitted spline (Cook 1985, program ARSTAN http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/

res/fac/trl/public/publicSoftware.html). Subsequently, the 11 and 24 index series were

averaged into two single site chronologies for Juniperus procera in Adaba-Dodola and

Menagesha-Suba forests, respectively.

To evaluate the signal strength of both sites we calculated the Expressed Population Signal

(EPS) for both chronologies, based on the average correlation between each site

[Tarski]

Chiill dude. Wait till I find the links in order to commentate on them.

Well I already know a bit about this one. A driving interest in black holes tends to lead one to knowing about this.

The article can provide such.

Nearly all linear regression has a percent of error chance, which should cover what we need. But if the error chance is too big, it speaks volumes about how accurate C-14 is.

I've taken Chem. Didn't like it, but eh. Was getting a D in the class... yet somehow managed a 100% on the Semi-Final. Had to do with those nasty word problems...

I don't need to know this, I simply need a good reliable source. I don't really even need the above you listed... I just need a source.

You guys are like children playing scientist.

I have not seen you so far do a good job of answering Zak's points. On some posts, you've responded decently, but on others, you've stated he doesn't know anything. You've stated he's got to read up on things. And dismissing his posts like this won't do much in terms of convincing me. And from what I've seen, he's done a decent job at responding to your posts, so telling me what he says is less valuable than what you say seems kinda... incorrect.

In fact, Zak's understanding is deficient. That is a fact. If it is your judgment that Zakuska has done a decent job here then so much the worse for your judgment. Did you understand my point about Markov processes and how it demolishes major portions of Zak's analysis?

Just as a little example of how silly this is; you claim to know quantum field theory (and black holes lol).

But it is impossible to know quantum field theory without knowing quantum mechanics and it is impossible to understand that without understanding spectral analysis of self adjoint operators on Hilbert space, partial differential equations, Lie group representation theory etc. One also needs statistical mechanics well past the level of Liouville's theorem. Modern particle physics also depends on understanding of gauge invariance principles and ideally an understanding of G-bundles and G-connections.

I have my doubts that any of this means a thing to you.

You guys need to quit pretending. Your bluff has been called.

You see, a lot has happened at a fundamental theoretical level since Libby (and Anderson and Arnold ) and it largely supports Libby so your work is cut out for you. Libby may not have needed to understand all this advanced stuff but anyone who wants to overturn where we are at now will certainly have to understand it.

Nearly all linear regression has a percent of error chance, which should cover what we need. But if the error chance is too big, it speaks volumes about how accurate C-14 is.

This sentence alone is a give away. "percent of error chance"??? Who talks like that? Do you even know what linear regression is? Can you explain it in your own words honestly without cut and past from an online explanation?

Be honest. Isn't that required by your religion? Isn't it far more important than this childish fight against science----science you don't really understand?

[thesometimesaint]

Tarski:

My religion requires that I be honest, and ultimately true science and true religion will be united in one Grand Unified Knowledge.

[Zakuska]

Yep... and the Ad Hominem attacks continue.

In fact, Zak's understanding is deficient. That is a fact. If it is your judgment that Zakuska has done a decent job here then so much the worse for your judgment. Did you understand my point about Markov processes and how it demolishes major portions of Zak's analysis?

How about those Juniper trees guys!

"Since juniper species are known to be problematic for dendrochronological studies (Esper2000, Sigl et al. 2005), "

Yep those tree rings surely cooberate our C14 dating alright!

[Tarski]

Yep... and the Ad Hominem attacks continue.

How about those Juniper trees guys!

"Since juniper species are known to be problematic for dendrochronological studies (Esper2000, Sigl et al. 2005), "

Yep those tree rings surely cooberate our C14 dating alright!

I think everyone can see that instead of addressing the devastating revelation that your "old carbon" criticism turned out to misguided, you decide to move on to juniper trees hoping everyone will forget that embarrassing display. We can anticipate that you won't have a point here either.

Hint: The key word in your quote above is "known".

You still haven't done the only thing that could make any of this relevant: Analyze the errors mathematically and show that the results are egregious enough to have relevance for anything religious. You are light years from that.

Not only did you not do it, you can't do it since you haven't the necessary training in error analysis which is a very nontrivial subject.

By the way, simply pointing out that you lack understanding and training is not an example of the logical fallacy known as "Ad Hominem". I am not drawing any scientific or logical conclusions from that fact. I offer it only as an explanation of why you keep getting things wrong and misinterpreting the significance of paper after paper.

You still haven't offered one credible reference that shows it is in appropriate to treat the exponential decay rate of C14 in the biosphere as anything but a constant (7Be is irrelevant as is the dubious thorium paper). But that doesn't stop you from proceeding as if you have established this bit of fiction. Is that honest??

[TAO]

You guys are like children playing scientist.

I'll pretend this comment never happened.

Just as a little example of how silly this is; you claim to know quantum field theory (and black holes lol).

But it is impossible to know quantum field theory without knowing quantum mechanics and it is impossible to understand that without understanding spectral analysis of self adjoint operators on Hilbert space, partial differential equations, Lie group representation theory etc. One also needs statistical mechanics well past the level of Liouville's theorem. Modern particle physics also depends on understanding of gauge invariance principles and ideally an understanding of G-bundles and G-connections.

Tarski, you should have known by now I do not learn things in the 'normal' way. I'm one of those people who can get those 'weird unexplainable understanding of things'. Black holes are one of those things that 'just make sense' to me.

I have my doubts that any of this means a thing to you.

Of course, when you use names of the theorems, yah. Names of theorems have absolutely no meaning to me. If you showed what they meant though, it'd be a different story.

You guys need to quit pretending. Your bluff has been called.

- _ - ...DOT... DOT.... DOT.....

You see, a lot has happened at a fundamental theoretical level since Libby (and Anderson and Arnold ) and it largely supports Libby so your work is cut out for you. Libby may not have needed to understand all this advanced stuff but anyone who wants to overturn where we are at now will certainly have to understand it.

Actually what needs to happen is you need to take apart arguments, rather than just say 'you don't understand this concept'. If you don't like it that somebody doesn't understand a concept, explain it to them. I'm sure you'll find they know much more about it than you expected.

This sentence alone is a give away. "percent of error chance"??? Who talks like that? Do you even know what linear regression is? Can you explain it in your own words honestly without cut and past from an online explanation?

Who talks like that... hmmmm... me perhaps. I'm getting bored with this conversation. I took a look at this picture on Wikipedia and knew what it was:

I had used the concept in my Algebra I class for my fourth quarter project. In fact, I even used the least squares approach - my Dad helped show me how... and this was... in 7th grade. Like 5-6 years ago. Percent of Error Chance is the most distant point through a perpendicular from the line.

Be honest. Isn't that required by your religion? Isn't it far more important than this childish fight against science----science you don't really understand?

No, on the contrary, I am rather unconcerned with Radio Carbon Dating tbh. I just find it annoying the way you aren't taking people's points seriously.

[Tarski]

Tarski, you should have known by now I do not learn things in the 'normal' way. I'm one of those people who can get those 'weird unexplainable understanding of things'. Black holes are one of those things that 'just make sense' to me.

Oh my! LOL

The test of understanding is operational and one should be able to articulate the understanding. Understanding is more than the feeling of understanding.

You must be able to say something clear and true. Can you do that without cut and paste. Could you pass a simple quiz about blackholes? (Hint: There is very very little understanding about black holes to be had without the mathematics of general relativity.)

Of course, when you use names of the theorems, yah. Names of theorems have absolutely no meaning to me. If you showed what they meant though, it'd be a different story.

No it wouldn't.

Actually what needs to happen is you need to take apart arguments,

It sure is telling that you don't notice that that is exactly what I did when I brought up the fact that radioactive decay is a Markov process. I made several ong posts about this. Why do you ignore my analysis?

I just find it annoying the way you aren't taking people's points seriously.

I gave these points far far more serious attention than they deserve (since they are based on misunderstanding and pointless for apologetics).

Percent of Error Chance is the most distant point through a perpendicular from the line

Nonsense. Percents are are not points, let alone most distance points. The very phrase "Percent of Error Chance" is problematics, it hardly even parses as English. What is "error chance" (and why am I wasting my time with nonsense)?

[Zakuska]

So Tarski... I have a proposition for you. Lets put our money where our keyboard is and Lets do a little experiment. Why not create a Java applet that models it all out mathamatically?

I propose we create a little biosphere applet.

(I'll do the computer work, and you can do the math equations that the algorithms run off of)

Into this applet we will play the creator (God, chemical forces or what ever) and add Atoms of all the various chemicals and write in code to handle/model the various chemical reactions taking place. Then we will add in weather condtions, wind, sun tempeture variations. Perhaps some water cycles and varying wether conditions Cloudy vs sunny. We could even run all this off real data of weather conditions for a region. Then we can intoduce seeds that can grow into trees and plants. Perhaps a few herbavors a Carnesaur of course, and definately some fish, algie and coral. All of these will consist of the varios chemicals we have added into our biosphere. Then we can add in the chemical reactions such as the forming of Radio active C14, Taking into account the poll shifts and magnetic variations etc. Each one of thes c14 molecules will have a Radio carbon timer attached to it and a random number generator will determine when each of these molecules will decay back into Nitogen. We will let the wind currents and weather patterns mix these stuff up in our little biosphere. When these atoms get close to the photosythesis sensors on our plants have them get photosythesized into the plant and thus it grows. Then the carbon atoms get passed on to our herbavours and then into the Carnesaur.

Then we can let the biosphere live for a while let the animals and plants grow from the chemicals we have in our biosphere and then die. Perhaps a cataclismic event.

Then we let 1000s of years pass for our radio carbon in these organism to go through half life decay. Then we dig them up and run our radio carbon dating on them and see what we come up with.

We can even create a blog for discussion so people can come in and critique and discuss the various ins and outs. I'll even make the code public domain.

What do you say?

[Tarski]

So Tarski... I have a proposition for you. Lets put our money where our keyboard is and Lets do a little experiment. Why not create a Java applet that models it all out mathamatically?

I propose we create a little biosphere applet.

(I'll do the computer work, and you can do the math equations that the algorithms run off of)

Into this applet we will add Atoms of all the various chemicals and write in code to handle/model the various chemical reactions taking place. Then we will add in weather condtions, wind, sun tempeture variations. Perhaps some water cycles and varying wether conditions Cloudy vs sunny. We could even run all this off real data of weather conditions for a region. Then we can intoduce seeds that can grow into trees and plants. Perhaps a few herbavors a Carnesaur of course, and definately some fish, algie and coral. All of these will consist of the varios chemicals we have added into our biosphere. Then we can add in the chemical reactions such as the forming of Radio active C14.Taking into account the poll shifts and magnetic variations. Let the wind currents and weather patterns mix these up in our little biosphere. When these atoms get close to the photosythesis sensors on our plants have them get photosythesized into the plant and thus it grows. Then the carbon atoms get passed on to our herbavours and then into the Carnesaur.

Then we can let the biosphere live for a while let the animals and plants grow from the chemicals we have in our biosphere and then die. Perhaps a cataclismic event.

Then we let 1000s of years pass for our radio carbon in these organism to go through half life decay. Then we dig them up and run our radio carbon dating on them and see what we come up with.

We can even create a blog for discussion so people can come in and critique and discuss the various ins and outs. I'll even make the code public domain.

What do you say?

This is your idea of a computer model? A model of what? Everything under the sun? LOL

Have you got a few years? Did you check what has already been done?

Look, I'll help you with the math if you can do a proof of concept---get a running program that models just a super simple toy model of just one aspect of radiocarbon dating problem. Just take one aspect, like the effect of variable geomagnetism on the quasi-equilibrium of C14 in the atmosphere. Start with as many simplifying assumptions as you like. If you can't even do that, then there is no hope of anything more realistic.

A better use of your time would be to do a simple statistical error analysis regarding something like tree rings.

How far off could we be given an reasonable estimate of how often tree rings fail to be formed.

How does multiple measurements affect the confidence intervals?

Prove that you do something simpler first.

[TAO]

Oh my! LOL

The test of understanding is operational and one should be able to articulate the understanding. Understanding is more than the feeling of understanding.

You must be able to say something clear and true. Can you do that without cut and paste. Could you pass a simple quiz about blackholes? (Hint: There is very very little understanding about black holes to be had without the mathematics of general relativity.)

*Shrugs* I understand what I read in books. Rather than understand them through math forumlas, I understand them through mental images and patterns. But yes, you may quiz me on black holes if you would like, just not the math forumlas. But I do warn you, it used to be one of my passion subjects, and on passion subjects, I tend to neglect the basics but know the obscure stuff insanely well.

No it wouldn't.

]

You won't know until you try.

It sure is telling that you don't notice that that is exactly what I did when I brought up the fact that radioactive decay is a Markov process. I made several ong posts about this. Why do you ignore my analysis?

You did it some of the time. But much of your posts is also saying Zak has no credibility. Which is kinda sad for a scientist to resort to.

I gave these points far far more serious attention than they deserve (since they are based on misunderstanding and pointless for apologetics).

Well then you must not be a scientist. A true scientist will give their attention to all points, regardless of where they come.

Nonsense. Percents are are not points, let alone most distance points. The very phrase "Percent of Error Chance" is problematics, it hardly even parses as English. What is "error chance" (and why am I wasting my time with nonsense)?

Distance between true point and BFL point / Y-Value of BFL point = Percentage of Error Chance at a point.

Use this at the point with the max distance

[Zakuska]

This is your idea of a computer model? A model of what? Everything under the sun? LOL

Have you got a few years? Did you check what has already been done?

Look, I'll help you with the math if you can do a proof of concept---get a running program that models just a super simple toy model of just one aspect of radiocarbon dating problem. Just take one aspect, like the effect of variable geomagnetism on the quasi-equilibrium of C14 in the atmosphere. Start with as many simplifying assumptions as you like. If you can't even do that, then there is no hope of anything more realistic.

A better use of your time would be to do a simple statistical error analysis regarding something like tree rings.

How far off could we be given an reasonable estimate of how often tree rings fail to be formed.

How does multiple measurements affect the confidence intervals?

Prove that you do something simpler first.

Model everything under the sun? Well yes and no.

Just a simple basic model of the carbon life cycle in a closed system. We can even limit the chemicals to C12, Nitrogen, Oxygen, Hydrogen.

[Zakuska]

I think everyone can see that instead of addressing the devastating revelation that your "old carbon" criticism turned out to misguided, you decide to move on to juniper trees hoping everyone will forget that embarrassing display. We can anticipate that you won't have a point here either.

Devastating? Embarassing display? Perhaps in your own mind.

The "Old Carbon" Cristisism is the exact reason why sea life is giving eronious C14 dates and can't be used to date their death by C14.

Carbon exchange reservoirLibby's original exchange reservoir hypothesis assumes that the exchange reservoir is constant all over the world. The calibration method also assumes that the temporal variation in ¹⁴C level is global, such that a small number of samples from a specific year are sufficient for calibration.^[19] However, since Libby's early work was published (1950 to 1958), latitudinal and continental variations in the carbon exchange reservoir have been observed by Hessel de Vries (1958;^[7] as reviewed by Lerman et al.^[20]). Subsequently, methods have been developed that allow the correction of these so-called reservoir effects, including:

• When CO₂ is transferred from the atmosphere to the oceans, it initially shares the ¹⁴C concentration of the atmosphere. However, turnaround times of CO₂ in the ocean are similar to the half-life of ¹⁴C (making ¹⁴C also a dating tool for ocean water).^[21] Marine organisms feed on this "old" carbon, and thus their radiocarbon age reflects the time of CO₂ uptake by the ocean rather than the time of death of the organism. This marine reservoir effect is partly handled by a special marine calibration curve,^[22] but local deviations of several hundred years exist.

Please notice that the dates being given for Marine life is exatly what I said... "time of CO2 uptake" by the ocean not there death dates. Id say the same thing is happening on the land based on time of creation of the C14 Molecule. And thats what I was trying to illustrate for you. I contend that OLD carbon is the culprit.

http://en.wikipedia....iocarbon_dating