"the concepts "male" and "female" are essentially social constructions" (Bill Sloman) Bozo the Clown... -- Anthony William Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:> X-Received: by 2002:ad4:4e72:: with SMTP id ec18mr32710123qvb.45.1634092594240; Tue, 12 Oct 2021 19:36:34 -0700 (PDT) > X-Received: by 2002:a25:3104:: with SMTP id x4mr32102985ybx.512.1634092594041; Tue, 12 Oct 2021 19:36:34 -0700 (PDT) > Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail > Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design > Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2021 19:36:33 -0700 (PDT) > In-Reply-To: <sk4uqf$1ume$2@gioia.aioe.org> > Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=14.202.25.252; posting-account=SJ46pgoAAABuUDuHc5uDiXN30ATE-zi- > NNTP-Posting-Host: 14.202.25.252 > References: <sjk8mgp34vcm4ofmccb7uipr2o8dbltt2h@4ax.com> <sk2p02$buf$1@reader1.panix.com> <t1hbmgpoattou966vbq69ir5h8qlbknvjr@4ax.com> <sk4uqf$1ume$2@gioia.aioe.org> > User-Agent: G2/1.0 > MIME-Version: 1.0 > Message-ID: <669d39af-e98e-463a-8344-305ced37bffdn@googlegroups.com> > Subject: Re: OT Aztec Cave Beans > From: Anthony William Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> > Injection-Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2021 02:36:34 +0000 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > Lines: 65 > Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org sci.electronics.design:648931 > > On Wednesday, October 13, 2021 at 8:30:59 AM UTC+11, Martin Brown wrote: >> On 12/10/2021 18:23, John Larkin wrote: >> > On Tue, 12 Oct 2021 01:39:14 -0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader >> > <pres...@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote: >> > >> >> jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> The possibly true legend is that these were found in a cave and carbo > n >> >>> dated back 1500 years and were still viable. >> Unless it was very dry and cool like in a cave then it seems just a bit > >> too long to be credible. Kew seed bank stores at 15% humidity and deep >> freeze conditions. They reckon some legume seeds will be viable for >> about 600 years maybe longer under those conditions. There are a few >> exceptionally old seeds that have been dated and germinated. >> >> https://www.kew.org/read-and-watch/seeds-for-life >> >> >> >> Isn't carbon dating up there with lie detector tests and dowsing for > >> >> water? >> > >> > I think it works pretty well. Not 1%, but a good estimate of the age >> > of organics. >> It is pretty good provided that the sample is well isolated from its >> environment and not too old (and not too young either). We messed up the > >> global C14 ratios pretty badly in the 1960's with too many atmospheric >> nuclear and H-bomb tests. It still hasn't really recovered to natural. >> >> https://c14.arch.ox.ac.uk/explanation_modern.php > > There also the global warming problem - a lot of the CO2 in the modern atmosphere has been produced by burning fossil carbon, which doesn't contain any C-14 at all. The modern atmosphere contains less C14 than it used to, and this is known as the Suess Effect > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suess_effect > > Hans Suess found it when he was looking at making carbon dating more accurate around 1955. > >> Oxford reckon that most of the time they can get within 0.3% or 30 years > >> whichever is the larger with some ambiguities when the solution is not >> single valued. There was more than one date when the same C14 ratio was > >> present in known ancient woodland core samples. >> >> https://c14.arch.ox.ac.uk/explanation.php >> >> If this is a factor then they return a range of possible dates that are > >> consistent with their dC14 measurements. They can also use dN15 for an >> independent check. >> >> The crucial thing for all radio carbon and all other isotopic ratio >> dating methods is that the sample must not have been able to exchange >> material with its environment or all bets are off. > > Too true. > > -- > Bill Sloman, Sydney > >
OT Aztec Cave Beans
Started by ●October 11, 2021
Reply by ●October 14, 20212021-10-14
Reply by ●October 14, 20212021-10-14
On Thursday, October 14, 2021 at 9:04:11 AM UTC-7, Cydrome Leader wrote:> Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:> > Carbon-dating is a useful technique and has made archeology a lot > > easier.> Nobody can even agree on how prcise it is. It's flavor of the week > nonsense.Anyone can 'agree'; that's not a good guide to precision of a measurement, and is, indeed, an invitation to nonsense. The errors in carbon dating are like those in any measurement tool, but the nutcase pseudoscience community thrives on ridicule, not precision. So, there's no end to nonsense. If you want to see more of it, _Evolution Cruncher_ is a book full of that dreck.
Reply by ●October 14, 20212021-10-14
On Friday, October 15, 2021 at 3:04:11 AM UTC+11, Cydrome Leader wrote:> Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote: > > On Wednesday, October 13, 2021 at 4:55:18 AM UTC+11, Cydrome Leader wrote: > >> Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote: > >> > On Tuesday, October 12, 2021 at 12:39:16 PM UTC+11, Cydrome Leader wrote: > >> >> jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > The possibly true legend is that these were found in a cave and carbon > >> >> > dated back 1500 years and were still viable. > >> >> > >> >> Isn't carbon dating up there with lie detector tests and dowsing for water? > >> > > >> > Not really. The rate at which C-14 gets into the atmosphere (from cosmic rates hitting N-14 and transmuting it into C-14) is a bit erratic, but we now know how to correct for that - and have done for quite a while, since about 1967. > >> > > >> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating > > > >> that article just reinforces the nonsense that carbon dating is. > > > > Cydrome Leader doesn't seem to have had much of an education. > > > > Carbon-dating is a useful technique and has made archeology a lot > > easier. It is not spectacularly precise, and there are small systematic and there are small systematicCydrome Leader managed to snip half what I'd written, without marking the snip "effects that have to be corrected for, but the propositionthat C-14 forms in the atmosphere when a cosmic ray hits an N-14 nucleus, and decays steadily once it has been captured during photosynthesis and incorporated into wood or other plant products is useful and reliable. "> Nobody can even agree on how precise it is.Nobody that Cydrome Leader can be bothered to read in full - he doesn't seem to have much of an attention span, and his comprehension sucks.> It's flavor of the week nonsense.Cydrome Leader likes to keep his thinking simple, by leaving out anything that takes even minimal work to comprehend.> The wiki page had some pretty amazing stuff like 3000BC +/- 12 years or some other random number nonsense.A search of the wiki page for that character string didn't show up anything. Curiously, I could find " a stratified tephra sequence in New Zealand, believed to predate human colonization of the islands, has been dated to 1314 AD ± 12 years by wiggle-matching." So Cydrome Leader invented the number he wants to decry as random number nonsense. He might not have done it deliberately - I'm happy to assume that he is merely stupid and careless.> On paper it looks good, in practice it's pure nonsense where all the numbers constantly change.Since Cydrome Leader can't even remember the right number, he may actually think that they do change. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply by ●October 15, 20212021-10-15
Anthony William Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:> On Friday, October 15, 2021 at 3:04:11 AM UTC+11, Cydrome Leader wrote: >> Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote: >> > On Wednesday, October 13, 2021 at 4:55:18 AM UTC+11, Cydrome Leader wrote: >> >> Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote: >> >> > On Tuesday, October 12, 2021 at 12:39:16 PM UTC+11, Cydrome Leader wrote: >> >> >> jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > The possibly true legend is that these were found in a cave and carbon >> >> >> > dated back 1500 years and were still viable. >> >> >> >> >> >> Isn't carbon dating up there with lie detector tests and dowsing for water? >> >> > >> >> > Not really. The rate at which C-14 gets into the atmosphere (from cosmic rates hitting N-14 and transmuting it into C-14) is a bit erratic, but we now know how to correct for that - and have done for quite a while, since about 1967. >> >> > >> >> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating >> > >> >> that article just reinforces the nonsense that carbon dating is. >> > >> > Cydrome Leader doesn't seem to have had much of an education. >> > >> > Carbon-dating is a useful technique and has made archeology a lot >> > easier. It is not spectacularly precise, and there are small systematic and there are small systematic > > Cydrome Leader managed to snip half what I'd written, without marking the snip > > "effects that have to be corrected for, but the propositionthat C-14 forms in the atmosphere when a cosmic ray hits an N-14 nucleus, and decays steadily once it has been captured during photosynthesis and incorporated into wood or other plant products is useful and reliable. " > >> Nobody can even agree on how precise it is. > > Nobody that Cydrome Leader can be bothered to read in full - he doesn't seem to have much of an attention span, and his comprehension sucks. > >> It's flavor of the week nonsense. > > Cydrome Leader likes to keep his thinking simple, by leaving out anything that takes even minimal work to comprehend. > >> The wiki page had some pretty amazing stuff like 3000BC +/- 12 years or some other random number nonsense. > > A search of the wiki page for that character string didn't show up anything. Curiously, I could find " a stratified tephra sequence in New Zealand, believed to predate human colonization of the islands, has been dated to 1314 AD ?? 12 years by wiggle-matching." > > So Cydrome Leader invented the number he wants to decry as random number nonsense. He might not have done it deliberately - I'm happy to assume that he is merely stupid and careless. > >> On paper it looks good, in practice it's pure nonsense where all the numbers constantly change. > > Since Cydrome Leader can't even remember the right number, he may actually think that they do change.You sure take cardon dating personally. You're both hacks.
Reply by ●October 16, 20212021-10-16
On Saturday, October 16, 2021 at 6:27:12 AM UTC+11, Cydrome Leader wrote:> Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote: > > On Friday, October 15, 2021 at 3:04:11 AM UTC+11, Cydrome Leader wrote: > >> Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote: > >> > On Wednesday, October 13, 2021 at 4:55:18 AM UTC+11, Cydrome Leader wrote: > >> >> Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote: > >> >> > On Tuesday, October 12, 2021 at 12:39:16 PM UTC+11, Cydrome Leader wrote: > >> >> >> jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > The possibly true legend is that these were found in a cave and carbon > >> >> >> > dated back 1500 years and were still viable. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Isn't carbon dating up there with lie detector tests and dowsing for water? > >> >> > > >> >> > Not really. The rate at which C-14 gets into the atmosphere (from cosmic rates hitting N-14 and transmuting it into C-14) is a bit erratic, but we now know how to correct for that - and have done for quite a while, since about 1967. > >> >> > > >> >> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating > >> > > >> >> that article just reinforces the nonsense that carbon dating is. > >> > > >> > Cydrome Leader doesn't seem to have had much of an education. > >> > > >> > Carbon-dating is a useful technique and has made archeology a lot > >> > easier. It is not spectacularly precise, and there are small systematic and there are small systematic > > > > Cydrome Leader managed to snip half what I'd written, without marking the snip > > > > "effects that have to be corrected for, but the propositionthat C-14 forms in the atmosphere when a cosmic ray hits an N-14 nucleus, and decays steadily once it has been captured during photosynthesis and incorporated into wood or other plant products is useful and reliable. " > > > >> Nobody can even agree on how precise it is. > > > > Nobody that Cydrome Leader can be bothered to read in full - he doesn't seem to have much of an attention span, and his comprehension sucks. > > > >> It's flavor of the week nonsense. > > > > Cydrome Leader likes to keep his thinking simple, by leaving out anything that takes even minimal work to comprehend. > > > >> The wiki page had some pretty amazing stuff like 3000BC +/- 12 years or some other random number nonsense. > > > > A search of the wiki page for that character string didn't show up anything. Curiously, I could find " a stratified tephra sequence in New Zealand, believed to predate human colonization of the islands, has been dated to 1314 AD ?? 12 years by wiggle-matching." > > > > So Cydrome Leader invented the number he wants to decry as random number nonsense. He might not have done it deliberately - I'm happy to assume that he is merely stupid and careless. > > > >> On paper it looks good, in practice it's pure nonsense where all the numbers constantly change. > > > > Since Cydrome Leader can't even remember the right number, he may actually think that they do change. > > You sure take carbon dating personally. You're both hacks.You are a pretentious half-wit, spreading misinformation about a technique that you don't remotely comprehend. You don't even qualify as a hack. since you really don't know what you are talking about. You may like to think that the other contributors to this thread are merely hacks, but you have managed to make it perfectly clear that your judgement is entirely worthless. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply by ●October 17, 20212021-10-17
Anthony William Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:> On Saturday, October 16, 2021 at 6:27:12 AM UTC+11, Cydrome Leader wrote: >> Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote: >> > On Friday, October 15, 2021 at 3:04:11 AM UTC+11, Cydrome Leader wrote: >> >> Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote: >> >> > On Wednesday, October 13, 2021 at 4:55:18 AM UTC+11, Cydrome Leader wrote: >> >> >> Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote: >> >> >> > On Tuesday, October 12, 2021 at 12:39:16 PM UTC+11, Cydrome Leader wrote: >> >> >> >> jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > The possibly true legend is that these were found in a cave and carbon >> >> >> >> > dated back 1500 years and were still viable. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Isn't carbon dating up there with lie detector tests and dowsing for water? >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Not really. The rate at which C-14 gets into the atmosphere (from cosmic rates hitting N-14 and transmuting it into C-14) is a bit erratic, but we now know how to correct for that - and have done for quite a while, since about 1967. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating >> >> > >> >> >> that article just reinforces the nonsense that carbon dating is. >> >> > >> >> > Cydrome Leader doesn't seem to have had much of an education. >> >> > >> >> > Carbon-dating is a useful technique and has made archeology a lot >> >> > easier. It is not spectacularly precise, and there are small systematic and there are small systematic >> > >> > Cydrome Leader managed to snip half what I'd written, without marking the snip >> > >> > "effects that have to be corrected for, but the propositionthat C-14 forms in the atmosphere when a cosmic ray hits an N-14 nucleus, and decays steadily once it has been captured during photosynthesis and incorporated into wood or other plant products is useful and reliable. " >> > >> >> Nobody can even agree on how precise it is. >> > >> > Nobody that Cydrome Leader can be bothered to read in full - he doesn't seem to have much of an attention span, and his comprehension sucks. >> > >> >> It's flavor of the week nonsense. >> > >> > Cydrome Leader likes to keep his thinking simple, by leaving out anything that takes even minimal work to comprehend. >> > >> >> The wiki page had some pretty amazing stuff like 3000BC +/- 12 years or some other random number nonsense. >> > >> > A search of the wiki page for that character string didn't show up anything. Curiously, I could find " a stratified tephra sequence in New Zealand, believed to predate human colonization of the islands, has been dated to 1314 AD ?? 12 years by wiggle-matching." >> > >> > So Cydrome Leader invented the number he wants to decry as random number nonsense. He might not have done it deliberately - I'm happy to assume that he is merely stupid and careless. >> > >> >> On paper it looks good, in practice it's pure nonsense where all the numbers constantly change. >> > >> > Since Cydrome Leader can't even remember the right number, he may actually think that they do change. >> >> You sure take carbon dating personally. You're both hacks. > > You are a pretentious half-wit, spreading misinformation about a technique that you don't remotely comprehend. > > You don't even qualify as a hack. since you really don't know what you are talking about. You may like to think that the other contributors to this thread are merely hacks, but you have managed to make it perfectly clear that your judgement is entirely worthless.Is what what your ouija board told you? Are you ready for a polygraph test? carbon dating is just conjecture and bullshit in practice, based off loose assumption about the state of the atmosphere long ago and other presumptions about how an object was stored and handled. Even this document basically goes on about we just have to assume lots of stuff, and the dates for groundwater are in the more realistic +/- hundreds to thousands of years. These are numbers that I can sort of subscribe to, not nonsense like +/- 12 year numerology ratings used by others for random objects. https://conservancy.umn.edu/bitstream/handle/11299/211402/Carbon-14%20Age%20Dating%20Calculations%20for%20Minnesota%20Groundwaters.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Reply by ●October 17, 20212021-10-17
On Monday, October 18, 2021 at 7:05:31 AM UTC+11, Cydrome Leader wrote:> Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote: > > On Saturday, October 16, 2021 at 6:27:12 AM UTC+11, Cydrome Leader wrote: > >> Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote: > >> > On Friday, October 15, 2021 at 3:04:11 AM UTC+11, Cydrome Leader wrote: > >> >> Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote: > >> >> > On Wednesday, October 13, 2021 at 4:55:18 AM UTC+11, Cydrome Leader wrote: > >> >> >> Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote: > >> >> >> > On Tuesday, October 12, 2021 at 12:39:16 PM UTC+11, Cydrome Leader wrote: > >> >> >> >> jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > The possibly true legend is that these were found in a cave and carbon > >> >> >> >> > dated back 1500 years and were still viable. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> Isn't carbon dating up there with lie detector tests and dowsing for water? > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Not really. The rate at which C-14 gets into the atmosphere (from cosmic rates hitting N-14 and transmuting it into C-14) is a bit erratic, but we now know how to correct for that - and have done for quite a while, since about 1967. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating > >> >> > > >> >> >> that article just reinforces the nonsense that carbon dating is. > >> >> > > >> >> > Cydrome Leader doesn't seem to have had much of an education. > >> >> > > >> >> > Carbon-dating is a useful technique and has made archeology a lot > >> >> > easier. It is not spectacularly precise, and there are small systematic and there are small systematic > >> > > >> > Cydrome Leader managed to snip half what I'd written, without marking the snip > >> > > >> > "effects that have to be corrected for, but the propositionthat C-14 forms in the atmosphere when a cosmic ray hits an N-14 nucleus, and decays steadily once it has been captured during photosynthesis and incorporated into wood or other plant products is useful and reliable. " > >> > > >> >> Nobody can even agree on how precise it is. > >> > > >> > Nobody that Cydrome Leader can be bothered to read in full - he doesn't seem to have much of an attention span, and his comprehension sucks. > >> > > >> >> It's flavor of the week nonsense. > >> > > >> > Cydrome Leader likes to keep his thinking simple, by leaving out anything that takes even minimal work to comprehend. > >> > > >> >> The wiki page had some pretty amazing stuff like 3000BC +/- 12 years or some other random number nonsense. > >> > > >> > A search of the wiki page for that character string didn't show up anything. Curiously, I could find " a stratified tephra sequence in New Zealand, believed to predate human colonization of the islands, has been dated to 1314 AD +/- 12 years by wiggle-matching." > >> > > >> > So Cydrome Leader invented the number he wants to decry as random number nonsense. He might not have done it deliberately - I'm happy to assume that he is merely stupid and careless. > >> > > >> >> On paper it looks good, in practice it's pure nonsense where all the numbers constantly change. > >> > > >> > Since Cydrome Leader can't even remember the right number, he may actually think that they do change. > >> > >> You sure take carbon dating personally. You're both hacks. > > > > You are a pretentious half-wit, spreading misinformation about a technique that you don't remotely comprehend. > > > > You don't even qualify as a hack. since you really don't know what you are talking about. You may like to think that the other contributors to this thread are merely hacks, but you have managed to make it perfectly clear that your judgement is entirely worthless. > > Is what what your ouija board told you? Are you ready for a polygraph test?No. Your claim that wiki page had a "3000BC +/- 12 years" number - when it didn't - and you had clearly misread "1314 AD +/- 12 years" told me all that I needed to know.> carbon dating is just conjecture and bullshit in practice, based off loose assumption about the state of the atmosphere long ago and other presumptions about how an object was stored and handled.There's nothing loose about the conclusions about the historical state of the atmosphere. It is inferred from stuff like tree-ring data, but the process is rigorous and cross-checked - there are lots of old-tree rings around.> Even this document basically goes on about we just have to assume lots of > stuff, and the dates for groundwater are in the more realistic +/- > hundreds to thousands of years. These are numbers that I can sort of > subscribe to, not nonsense like +/- 12 year numerology ratings used by > others for random objects.1314 AD is seven hundred years ago. +/12 years on 700 years isn't all that precise - +/-2% <snipped tedious crap about groundwater, which doesn't contain much CO2 at the best of times, and can exchange it with carbonate rocks (if there are any around)> -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply by ●October 18, 20212021-10-18
Anthony William Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:> On Monday, October 18, 2021 at 7:05:31 AM UTC+11, Cydrome Leader wrote: >> Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote: >> > On Saturday, October 16, 2021 at 6:27:12 AM UTC+11, Cydrome Leader wrote: >> >> Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote: >> >> > On Friday, October 15, 2021 at 3:04:11 AM UTC+11, Cydrome Leader wrote: >> >> >> Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote: >> >> >> > On Wednesday, October 13, 2021 at 4:55:18 AM UTC+11, Cydrome Leader wrote: >> >> >> >> Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote: >> >> >> >> > On Tuesday, October 12, 2021 at 12:39:16 PM UTC+11, Cydrome Leader wrote: >> >> >> >> >> jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > The possibly true legend is that these were found in a cave and carbon >> >> >> >> >> > dated back 1500 years and were still viable. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Isn't carbon dating up there with lie detector tests and dowsing for water? >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > Not really. The rate at which C-14 gets into the atmosphere (from cosmic rates hitting N-14 and transmuting it into C-14) is a bit erratic, but we now know how to correct for that - and have done for quite a while, since about 1967. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> that article just reinforces the nonsense that carbon dating is. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Cydrome Leader doesn't seem to have had much of an education. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Carbon-dating is a useful technique and has made archeology a lot >> >> >> > easier. It is not spectacularly precise, and there are small systematic and there are small systematic >> >> > >> >> > Cydrome Leader managed to snip half what I'd written, without marking the snip >> >> > >> >> > "effects that have to be corrected for, but the propositionthat C-14 forms in the atmosphere when a cosmic ray hits an N-14 nucleus, and decays steadily once it has been captured during photosynthesis and incorporated into wood or other plant products is useful and reliable. " >> >> > >> >> >> Nobody can even agree on how precise it is. >> >> > >> >> > Nobody that Cydrome Leader can be bothered to read in full - he doesn't seem to have much of an attention span, and his comprehension sucks. >> >> > >> >> >> It's flavor of the week nonsense. >> >> > >> >> > Cydrome Leader likes to keep his thinking simple, by leaving out anything that takes even minimal work to comprehend. >> >> > >> >> >> The wiki page had some pretty amazing stuff like 3000BC +/- 12 years or some other random number nonsense. >> >> > >> >> > A search of the wiki page for that character string didn't show up anything. Curiously, I could find " a stratified tephra sequence in New Zealand, believed to predate human colonization of the islands, has been dated to 1314 AD +/- 12 years by wiggle-matching." >> >> > >> >> > So Cydrome Leader invented the number he wants to decry as random number nonsense. He might not have done it deliberately - I'm happy to assume that he is merely stupid and careless. >> >> > >> >> >> On paper it looks good, in practice it's pure nonsense where all the numbers constantly change. >> >> > >> >> > Since Cydrome Leader can't even remember the right number, he may actually think that they do change. >> >> >> >> You sure take carbon dating personally. You're both hacks. >> > >> > You are a pretentious half-wit, spreading misinformation about a technique that you don't remotely comprehend. >> > >> > You don't even qualify as a hack. since you really don't know what you are talking about. You may like to think that the other contributors to this thread are merely hacks, but you have managed to make it perfectly clear that your judgement is entirely worthless. >> >> Is what what your ouija board told you? Are you ready for a polygraph test? > > No. Your claim that wiki page had a "3000BC +/- 12 years" number - when it didn't - and you had clearly misread "1314 AD +/- 12 years" told me all that I needed to know. > >> carbon dating is just conjecture and bullshit in practice, based off loose assumption about the state of the atmosphere long ago and other presumptions about how an object was stored and handled. > > There's nothing loose about the conclusions about the historical state of the atmosphere. It is inferred from stuff like tree-ring data, but the process is rigorous and cross-checked - there are lots of old-tree rings around. > >> Even this document basically goes on about we just have to assume lots of >> stuff, and the dates for groundwater are in the more realistic +/- >> hundreds to thousands of years. These are numbers that I can sort of >> subscribe to, not nonsense like +/- 12 year numerology ratings used by >> others for random objects. > > 1314 AD is seven hundred years ago. +/12 years on 700 years isn't all > that precise - +/-2%Nobody even knows the half life of C14 to within +/-12 years. In a paper from 1951 https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/jres/46/jresv46n4p328_A1b.pdf the best guess was 5370 +/- 200 years. They're down to +/- 40 now. These numbers are clearly extrapolated, since nobody is measuring a sample of C14 every thousand years.> <snipped tedious crap about groundwater, which doesn't contain much CO2 at the best of times, and can exchange it with carbonate rocks (if there are any around)>Oh what's that? You don't like this scientific paper that lines up all the holes in carbon dating as anything other than a sort of rough guess about how old something might be? Measuring the height of a horse in hands is more precise, with less error than carbon dating artifacts.
Reply by ●October 18, 20212021-10-18
On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 5:52:22 AM UTC+11, Cydrome Leader wrote:> Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote: > > On Monday, October 18, 2021 at 7:05:31 AM UTC+11, Cydrome Leader wrote: > >> Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote: > >> > On Saturday, October 16, 2021 at 6:27:12 AM UTC+11, Cydrome Leader wrote: > >> >> Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote: > >> >> > On Friday, October 15, 2021 at 3:04:11 AM UTC+11, Cydrome Leader wrote: > >> >> >> Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote: > >> >> >> > On Wednesday, October 13, 2021 at 4:55:18 AM UTC+11, Cydrome Leader wrote: > >> >> >> >> Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote: > >> >> >> >> > On Tuesday, October 12, 2021 at 12:39:16 PM UTC+11, Cydrome Leader wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> > The possibly true legend is that these were found in a cave and carbon > >> >> >> >> >> > dated back 1500 years and were still viable. > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> Isn't carbon dating up there with lie detector tests and dowsing for water? > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > Not really. The rate at which C-14 gets into the atmosphere (from cosmic rates hitting N-14 and transmuting it into C-14) is a bit erratic, but we now know how to correct for that - and have done for quite a while, since about 1967. > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> that article just reinforces the nonsense that carbon dating is. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Cydrome Leader doesn't seem to have had much of an education. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Carbon-dating is a useful technique and has made archeology a lot > >> >> >> > easier. It is not spectacularly precise, and there are small systematic and there are small systematic > >> >> > > >> >> > Cydrome Leader managed to snip half what I'd written, without marking the snip > >> >> > > >> >> > "effects that have to be corrected for, but the propositionthat C-14 forms in the atmosphere when a cosmic ray hits an N-14 nucleus, and decays steadily once it has been captured during photosynthesis and incorporated into wood or other plant products is useful and reliable. " > >> >> > > >> >> >> Nobody can even agree on how precise it is. > >> >> > > >> >> > Nobody that Cydrome Leader can be bothered to read in full - he doesn't seem to have much of an attention span, and his comprehension sucks. > >> >> > > >> >> >> It's flavor of the week nonsense. > >> >> > > >> >> > Cydrome Leader likes to keep his thinking simple, by leaving out anything that takes even minimal work to comprehend. > >> >> > > >> >> >> The wiki page had some pretty amazing stuff like 3000BC +/- 12 years or some other random number nonsense. > >> >> > > >> >> > A search of the wiki page for that character string didn't show up anything. Curiously, I could find " a stratified tephra sequence in New Zealand, believed to predate human colonization of the islands, has been dated to 1314 AD +/- 12 years by wiggle-matching." > >> >> > > >> >> > So Cydrome Leader invented the number he wants to decry as random number nonsense. He might not have done it deliberately - I'm happy to assume that he is merely stupid and careless. > >> >> > > >> >> >> On paper it looks good, in practice it's pure nonsense where all the numbers constantly change. > >> >> > > >> >> > Since Cydrome Leader can't even remember the right number, he may actually think that they do change. > >> >> > >> >> You sure take carbon dating personally. You're both hacks. > >> > > >> > You are a pretentious half-wit, spreading misinformation about a technique that you don't remotely comprehend. > >> > > >> > You don't even qualify as a hack. since you really don't know what you are talking about. You may like to think that the other contributors to this thread are merely hacks, but you have managed to make it perfectly clear that your judgement is entirely worthless. > >> > >> Is what what your ouija board told you? Are you ready for a polygraph test? > > > > No. Your claim that wiki page had a "3000BC +/- 12 years" number - when it didn't - and you had clearly misread "1314 AD +/- 12 years" told me all that I needed to know. > > > >> carbon dating is just conjecture and bullshit in practice, based off loose assumption about the state of the atmosphere long ago and other presumptions about how an object was stored and handled. > > > > There's nothing loose about the conclusions about the historical state of the atmosphere. It is inferred from stuff like tree-ring data, but the process is rigorous and cross-checked - there are lots of old-tree rings around. > > > >> Even this document basically goes on about we just have to assume lots of > >> stuff, and the dates for groundwater are in the more realistic +/- > >> hundreds to thousands of years. These are numbers that I can sort of > >> subscribe to, not nonsense like +/- 12 year numerology ratings used by > >> others for random objects. > > > > 1314 AD is seven hundred years ago. +/12 years on 700 years isn't all > > that precise - +/-2% > > Nobody even knows the half life of C14 to within +/-12 years. In a paper > from 1951 https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/jres/46/jresv46n4p328_A1b.pdf > > the best guess was 5370 +/- 200 years. They're down to +/- 40 now. These > numbers are clearly extrapolated, since nobody is measuring a sample of > C14 every thousand years.The +/-40 years comes from 1962. You don't need to measure for a thousand year to improve the accuracy - though it would clearly help. Godwin, H. (1962). "Half-life of radiocarbon". Nature. 195 (4845): 984. Bibcode:1962Natur.195..984G. doi:10.1038/195984a0. S2CID 27534222. You can do perfectly fine by measuring - much more accurately - for shorter periods. Every carbon-14 nucleus is identical, and has exactly the same probability of decaying, which is what you are measuring, even if you present the result as a calculated half-life.> > <snipped tedious crap about groundwater, which doesn't contain much CO2 at the best of times, and can exchange it with carbonate rocks (if there are any around)>> Oh what's that? You don't like this scientific paper that lines up all the holes in carbon dating as anything other than a sort of rough guess about how old something might be?It didn't line up any holes. It just discussed the problems of interpreting what they were measuring. This was careful work, about as far from a rough guess as you can get.> Measuring the height of a horse in hands is more precise, with less error than carbon dating artifacts.Not that you have clue what they are. Incidentally, +/-40 years in 5730 is accurate to +/-0.7%. +/-12 year years in 700year is +/-2%. AD1314 is seven hundred years ago. Your ideas about precision are depressingly ill-informed. You need to do some work on those ideas if you don;t want to come across as a dogmatic half-wit. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply by ●October 19, 20212021-10-19
Anthony William Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:> On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 5:52:22 AM UTC+11, Cydrome Leader wrote: >> Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote: >> > On Monday, October 18, 2021 at 7:05:31 AM UTC+11, Cydrome Leader wrote: >> >> Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote: >> >> > On Saturday, October 16, 2021 at 6:27:12 AM UTC+11, Cydrome Leader wrote: >> >> >> Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote: >> >> >> > On Friday, October 15, 2021 at 3:04:11 AM UTC+11, Cydrome Leader wrote: >> >> >> >> Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote: >> >> >> >> > On Wednesday, October 13, 2021 at 4:55:18 AM UTC+11, Cydrome Leader wrote: >> >> >> >> >> Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> > On Tuesday, October 12, 2021 at 12:39:16 PM UTC+11, Cydrome Leader wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > The possibly true legend is that these were found in a cave and carbon >> >> >> >> >> >> > dated back 1500 years and were still viable. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Isn't carbon dating up there with lie detector tests and dowsing for water? >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > Not really. The rate at which C-14 gets into the atmosphere (from cosmic rates hitting N-14 and transmuting it into C-14) is a bit erratic, but we now know how to correct for that - and have done for quite a while, since about 1967. >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> that article just reinforces the nonsense that carbon dating is. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > Cydrome Leader doesn't seem to have had much of an education. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > Carbon-dating is a useful technique and has made archeology a lot >> >> >> >> > easier. It is not spectacularly precise, and there are small systematic and there are small systematic >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Cydrome Leader managed to snip half what I'd written, without marking the snip >> >> >> > >> >> >> > "effects that have to be corrected for, but the propositionthat C-14 forms in the atmosphere when a cosmic ray hits an N-14 nucleus, and decays steadily once it has been captured during photosynthesis and incorporated into wood or other plant products is useful and reliable. " >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> Nobody can even agree on how precise it is. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Nobody that Cydrome Leader can be bothered to read in full - he doesn't seem to have much of an attention span, and his comprehension sucks. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> It's flavor of the week nonsense. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Cydrome Leader likes to keep his thinking simple, by leaving out anything that takes even minimal work to comprehend. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> The wiki page had some pretty amazing stuff like 3000BC +/- 12 years or some other random number nonsense. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > A search of the wiki page for that character string didn't show up anything. Curiously, I could find " a stratified tephra sequence in New Zealand, believed to predate human colonization of the islands, has been dated to 1314 AD +/- 12 years by wiggle-matching." >> >> >> > >> >> >> > So Cydrome Leader invented the number he wants to decry as random number nonsense. He might not have done it deliberately - I'm happy to assume that he is merely stupid and careless. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> On paper it looks good, in practice it's pure nonsense where all the numbers constantly change. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Since Cydrome Leader can't even remember the right number, he may actually think that they do change. >> >> >> >> >> >> You sure take carbon dating personally. You're both hacks. >> >> > >> >> > You are a pretentious half-wit, spreading misinformation about a technique that you don't remotely comprehend. >> >> > >> >> > You don't even qualify as a hack. since you really don't know what you are talking about. You may like to think that the other contributors to this thread are merely hacks, but you have managed to make it perfectly clear that your judgement is entirely worthless. >> >> >> >> Is what what your ouija board told you? Are you ready for a polygraph test? >> > >> > No. Your claim that wiki page had a "3000BC +/- 12 years" number - when it didn't - and you had clearly misread "1314 AD +/- 12 years" told me all that I needed to know. >> > >> >> carbon dating is just conjecture and bullshit in practice, based off loose assumption about the state of the atmosphere long ago and other presumptions about how an object was stored and handled. >> > >> > There's nothing loose about the conclusions about the historical state of the atmosphere. It is inferred from stuff like tree-ring data, but the process is rigorous and cross-checked - there are lots of old-tree rings around. >> > >> >> Even this document basically goes on about we just have to assume lots of >> >> stuff, and the dates for groundwater are in the more realistic +/- >> >> hundreds to thousands of years. These are numbers that I can sort of >> >> subscribe to, not nonsense like +/- 12 year numerology ratings used by >> >> others for random objects. >> > >> > 1314 AD is seven hundred years ago. +/12 years on 700 years isn't all >> > that precise - +/-2% >> >> Nobody even knows the half life of C14 to within +/-12 years. In a paper >> from 1951 https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/jres/46/jresv46n4p328_A1b.pdf >> >> the best guess was 5370 +/- 200 years. They're down to +/- 40 now. These >> numbers are clearly extrapolated, since nobody is measuring a sample of >> C14 every thousand years. > > The +/-40 years comes from 1962. You don't need to measure for a thousand year to improve the accuracy - though it would clearly help. > > Godwin, H. (1962). "Half-life of radiocarbon". Nature. 195 (4845): 984. Bibcode:1962Natur.195..984G. doi:10.1038/195984a0. S2CID 27534222. > > You can do perfectly fine by measuring - much more accurately - for shorter periods. Every carbon-14 nucleus is identical, and has exactly the same probability of decaying, which is what you are measuring, even if you present the result as a calculated half-life. > >> > <snipped tedious crap about groundwater, which doesn't contain much CO2 at the best of times, and can exchange it with carbonate rocks (if there are any around)> > >> Oh what's that? You don't like this scientific paper that lines up all the holes in carbon dating as anything other than a sort of rough guess about how old something might be? > > It didn't line up any holes. It just discussed the problems of interpreting what they were measuring. This was careful work, about as far from a rough guess as you can get. > >> Measuring the height of a horse in hands is more precise, with less error than carbon dating artifacts. > > Not that you have clue what they are. Incidentally, +/-40 years in 5730 is accurate to +/-0.7%. +/-12 year years in 700year is +/-2%. AD1314 is seven hundred years ago. > > Your ideas about precision are depressingly ill-informed. You need to do some work on those ideas if you don;t want to come across as a dogmatic half-wit.Be sure to bitch to this lab that does carbon dating and complain about the two sets of results for a simple textile test they ran: https://youtu.be/-xKvq6VLe4s?t=517 It's a good video that shows how complex the process really is, and wraps up with odd correction curves and lots of uncertainty in the final results.
