On Wednesday, October 20, 2021 at 7:07:48 AM UTC+11, Cydrome Leader wrote:> Anthony William Sloman <bill....@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:Why would I bother? There are points along the aging curve where you can get two different ages for the proportion of C-13 - a bit more cosmic ray action in an earlier period put a bit more C-13 into older samples, so the older sample is now indistinguishable from a younger sample that was laid down when there was a bit less C-13 in the air. This has been known since the 1960's. It doesn't happen often, and it is a nuisance when it does. You can frequently disambiguate the result on the basis of other evidence. It doesn't make the results any kind of "rough guess".> 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.A rather specific uncertainty in some final results. Grow up. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
OT Aztec Cave Beans
Started by ●October 11, 2021
Reply by ●October 19, 20212021-10-19
Reply by ●October 20, 20212021-10-20
Anthony William Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:> On Wednesday, October 20, 2021 at 7:07:48 AM UTC+11, Cydrome Leader wrote: >> Anthony William Sloman <bill....@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: > > Why would I bother? There are points along the aging curve where you can get two different ages for the proportion of C-13 - a bit more cosmic ray action in an earlier period put a bit more C-13 into older samples, so the older sample is now indistinguishable from a younger sample that was laid down when there was a bit less C-13 in the air. This has been known since the 1960's. It doesn't happen often, and it is a nuisance when it does. You can frequently disambiguate the result on the basis of other evidence. It doesn't make the results any kind of "rough guess". > >> 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. > > A rather specific uncertainty in some final results. Grow up.so you went from carbon dating is precise, pure science to talk of carbon 13, "specific uncertainty" and better use other evidence because of points along the curve that just don't work right. Like I said from the start, carbon dating is more witch magic than science, and eveything makes it fall down in practice. It is not definitive or precise, and should not be trusted as being reliable.
Reply by ●October 20, 20212021-10-20
On Thursday, October 21, 2021 at 4:27:22 AM UTC+11, Cydrome Leader wrote:> Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote: > > On Wednesday, October 20, 2021 at 7:07:48 AM UTC+11, Cydrome Leader wrote: > >> Anthony William Sloman <bill....@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: > > > > Why would I bother? There are points along the aging curve where you can get two different ages for the proportion of C-13 - a bit more cosmic ray action in an earlier period put a bit more C-13 into older samples, so the older sample is now indistinguishable from a younger sample that was laid down when there was a bit less C-13 in the air. This has been known since the 1960's. It doesn't happen often, and it is a nuisance when it does. You can frequently disambiguate the result on the basis of other evidence. It doesn't make the results any kind of "rough guess". > > > >> 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. > > > > A rather specific uncertainty in some final results. Grow up. > > so you went from carbon dating is precise, pure science to talk of carbon > 13, "specific uncertainty" and better use other evidence because of points > along the curve that just don't work right.Science is about dealing with uncertainties. The initial assumption that the cosmic ray intensity was uniform over history was an over-simplication - as initial assumptions often turn out to be. The tree ring data allowed the researcher to work out how it had varied (not all that much) and they documented it. That's how science works. The points along the curve didn't work right, so the scientists involved worked out precisely what was going on, and how to correct for it.> Like I said from the start, carbon dating is more witch magic than science, and everything makes it fall down in practice.Rubbish. It's not a bar-coded date stamp, but it is precise enough to be useful, and a whole lot better than dowsing for water, or any kind of witch magic.> It is not definitive or precise, and should not be trusted as being reliable.There are well-known and perfectly obvious limits to the precision it offers, but within those well-defined limits it is reliable. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply by ●October 21, 20212021-10-21
On Sunday, October 17, 2021 at 1:05:31 PM UTC-7, Cydrome Leader wrote:> carbon dating is just conjecture and bullshit in practice,Not so, according to practitioners. I'm thinking you aren't one of those.>... based off loose > assumption about the state of the atmosphere long agoNot so; there are tree ring correspondences, for instance, giving data about the past few centuries to check against. Those are measurements, not assumptions.>...and other > presumptions about how an object was stored and handled.Presumptions? No, those are called assumptions. You cannot usefully call practitioners presumptuous, but would you have better assumptions to offer? Other than 'ignoramus, et ignoramibus', you seem to have nothing.
