Guest Infinity (TEXT & HTML) Posted November 26, 2006 Posted November 26, 2006 Fester wrote: > I was hoping that some one here would be able to answerr a question about > dating of fossils, &c using radioisotopes works. Specificially, as I > understand the technique, one looks at the relative amounts of one isotope > of say carbon in a specimen. The population of carbon is presumed to > initially contain the same portion of a non-stable isotope as is found in > the ecology at large, and the carbon is not replaced after the organisms > death. So the proportion containned in the specimen is indicative of how > long that collection has been out of circulation, so to speak. > > So far, so good, but here's my question. Why does the proportion of the > non-stable carbon at large in the environment not reduce at the same rate as > that found in fossils? > > > Thus Spake: G O D S C R E A T O R Where were you a thousand years ago... did you exist? AUTHORITATIVE ANSWER: I don't know! :-\ Infinity = "Everything changes, but it's still the same thing" THIS IS ALL I KNOW ABOUT CARBON DATING... Err... believe..; ---> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/cardat.html God's Creator! (I am Life & Death) 8-) Quote
Guest OG Posted November 26, 2006 Posted November 26, 2006 "Infinity (TEXT & HTML)" <Infinity@warez.bofh.org.uk> wrote in message news:E5GdnRUUWYmeR_XYnZ2dnUVZ_q6dnZ2d@comcast.com... Fester wrote: I was hoping that some one here would be able to answerr a question about dating of fossils, &c using radioisotopes works. Specificially, as I understand the technique, one looks at the relative amounts of one isotope of say carbon in a specimen. The population of carbon is presumed to initially contain the same portion of a non-stable isotope as is found in the ecology at large, and the carbon is not replaced after the organisms death. So the proportion containned in the specimen is indicative of how long that collection has been out of circulation, so to speak. So far, so good, but here's my question. Why does the proportion of the non-stable carbon at large in the environment not reduce at the same rate as that found in fossils? ========================= In the specific case of C14, there is a continuous replenishment of that particular isotope of Carbon because of cosmic ray interactions in the upper atmosphere. Quote
Guest ..andnothingbut Posted November 26, 2006 Posted November 26, 2006 I was hoping that some one here would be able to > answerr a question about > dating of fossils, &c using radioisotopes works. Specificially, > as I understand the technique, one looks at the relative amounts of > one isotope of say carbon in a specimen. The population of carbon is > presumed to initially contain the same portion of a non-stable isotope > as is found in the ecology at large, and the carbon is not replaced > after the organisms death. So the proportion containned in the > specimen is indicative of how long that collection has been out of > circulation, so to speak. > > So far, so good, but here's my question. Why does the proportion of > the non-stable carbon at large in the environment not reduce at the > same rate as that found in fossils? Because, like air, in a living organism the carbon keeps replacing itself. A similar example (though very short term) would be using body temperature to determine time of death. The body stays at 98.6 while it's alive (the body cools, but the heat is replaced by "burning" food). When the person dies, that replenishing stops ... and the body cools over a predictable time. Quote
Guest Infinity (TEXT & HTML) Posted November 26, 2006 Posted November 26, 2006 ...andnothingbut wrote: > I was hoping that some one here would be able toanswerr a question about > dating of fossils... >> &c using radioisotopes works. Specificially, >> as I understand the technique, one looks at the relative amounts of >> one isotope of say carbon in a specimen. The population of carbon is >> presumed to initially contain the same portion of a non-stable isotope >> as is found in the ecology at large, and the carbon is not replaced >> after the organisms death. So the proportion containned in the >> specimen is indicative of how long that collection has been out of >> circulation, so to speak. >> >> So far, so good, but here's my question. Why does the proportion of >> the non-stable carbon at large in the environment not reduce at the >> same rate as that found in fossils? >> > > > Because, like air, in a living organism the carbon keeps replacing itself. > > A similar example (though very short term) would be using body temperature > to determine time of death. > The body stays at 98.6 while it's alive (the body cools, but the heat is > replaced by "burning" food). > > When the person dies, that replenishing stops ... and the body cools over a > predictable time. > Thus Spake: G O D S C R E A T O R So that means, the fossil ain't quite (atomically) dead yet, because it still has some carbon isotopes changing, but at a s l o w e r rate. :-) God's Creator! (I am Life & Death) 8-) -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Wise men study the unknown and mysterious things to enhance their wisdom, while frightened men shout, kneel down, close their eyes and mumble... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Quote
Guest ..andnothingbut Posted November 26, 2006 Posted November 26, 2006 "Infinity (TEXT & HTML)" <Infinity@warez.bofh.org.uk> wrote in news:esednaGFPvdDovTYnZ2dnUVZ_tadnZ2d@comcast.com: > ..andnothingbut wrote: >> I was hoping that some one here would be able toanswerr a question >> about dating of fossils... >>> &c using radioisotopes works. Specificially, >>> as I understand the technique, one looks at the relative amounts of >>> one isotope of say carbon in a specimen. The population of carbon >>> is presumed to initially contain the same portion of a non-stable >>> isotope as is found in the ecology at large, and the carbon is not >>> replaced after the organisms death. So the proportion containned in >>> the specimen is indicative of how long that collection has been out >>> of circulation, so to speak. >>> >>> So far, so good, but here's my question. Why does the proportion of >>> the non-stable carbon at large in the environment not reduce at the >>> same rate as that found in fossils? >>> >> >> >> Because, like air, in a living organism the carbon keeps replacing >> itself. >> >> A similar example (though very short term) would be using body >> temperature to determine time of death. >> The body stays at 98.6 while it's alive (the body cools, but the heat >> is replaced by "burning" food). >> >> When the person dies, that replenishing stops ... and the body cools >> over a predictable time. >> > Thus Spake: G O D S C R E A T O R > > > So that means, the fossil ain't quite (atomically) dead yet, > because it still has some carbon isotopes changing, > but at a s l o w e r rate. :-) Actually, yes. But "dead of life" is not the same as "atomically dead"; just as "stone cold dead" is still at room temperature. > > > > God's Creator! > (I am Life & Death) 8-) Quote
Guest tadchem Posted November 26, 2006 Posted November 26, 2006 OG wrote: > "Infinity (TEXT & HTML)" <Infinity@warez.bofh.org.uk> wrote in message > news:E5GdnRUUWYmeR_XYnZ2dnUVZ_q6dnZ2d@comcast.com... > Fester wrote: > I was hoping that some one here would be able to answerr a question about > dating of fossils, &c using radioisotopes works. Specificially, as I > understand the technique, one looks at the relative amounts of one isotope > of say carbon in a specimen. The population of carbon is presumed to > initially contain the same portion of a non-stable isotope as is found in > the ecology at large, and the carbon is not replaced after the organisms > death. So the proportion containned in the specimen is indicative of how > long that collection has been out of circulation, so to speak. > > So far, so good, but here's my question. Why does the proportion of the > non-stable carbon at large in the environment not reduce at the same rateas > that found in fossils? Carbon-14 is continually being replenished in the atmosphere: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-14 "Carbon-14 is produced in the upper layers of the troposphere and the stratosphere by thermal neutrons absorbed by nitrogen atoms. When cosmic rays enter the atmosphere, they undergo various transformations, including the production of neutrons. The resulting neutrons participate in the following reaction: n + 14N → 14C + 1H " However, this replenishment rate is not constant, as it depends on solar activity and the effects of atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons in the 1950's and 1960's. It is necessary to calibrate the carbon-14 dating curve. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating#Calibration The calibration actually improves the accuracy of carbon dating. Tom Davidson Richmond, VA Quote
Guest The Ghost In The Machine Posted November 26, 2006 Posted November 26, 2006 In sci.physics, tadchem <tadchem@comcast.net> wrote on 26 Nov 2006 13:18:31 -0800 <1164575911.668145.156350@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>: > > OG wrote: >> "Infinity (TEXT & HTML)" <Infinity@warez.bofh.org.uk> wrote in message >> news:E5GdnRUUWYmeR_XYnZ2dnUVZ_q6dnZ2d@comcast.com... >> Fester wrote: >> I was hoping that some one here would be able to answerr a question about >> dating of fossils, &c using radioisotopes works. Specificially, as I >> understand the technique, one looks at the relative amounts of one isotope >> of say carbon in a specimen. The population of carbon is presumed to >> initially contain the same portion of a non-stable isotope as is found in >> the ecology at large, and the carbon is not replaced after the organisms >> death. So the proportion containned in the specimen is indicative of how >> long that collection has been out of circulation, so to speak. >> >> So far, so good, but here's my question. Why does the proportion of the >> non-stable carbon at large in the environment not reduce at the same rate as >> that found in fossils? > > Carbon-14 is continually being replenished in the atmosphere: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-14 > > "Carbon-14 is produced in the upper layers of the troposphere and the > stratosphere by thermal neutrons absorbed by nitrogen atoms. When > cosmic rays enter the atmosphere, they undergo various transformations, > including the production of neutrons. The resulting neutrons > participate in the following reaction: > n + 14N ? 14C + 1H " I'll admit to some curiosity as to how readily the resulting cyanide ions (presumably, the N is part of N2, right?) is absorbed in the biosphere. > > However, this replenishment rate is not constant, as it depends on > solar activity and the effects of atmospheric testing of nuclear > weapons in the 1950's and 1960's. It is necessary to calibrate the > carbon-14 dating curve. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating#Calibration > > The calibration actually improves the accuracy of carbon dating. One would certainly hope so. :-) > > Tom Davidson > Richmond, VA > -- #191, ewill3@earthlink.net Useless C++ Programming Idea #110309238: item f(item p) { if(p = NULL) return new item; else return p; } -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com Quote
Guest Sorcerer Posted November 27, 2006 Posted November 27, 2006 "tadchem" <tadchem@comcast.net> wrote in message news:1164575911.668145.156350@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... OG wrote: > "Infinity (TEXT & HTML)" <Infinity@warez.bofh.org.uk> wrote in message > news:E5GdnRUUWYmeR_XYnZ2dnUVZ_q6dnZ2d@comcast.com... > Fester wrote: > I was hoping that some one here would be able to answerr a question about > dating of fossils, &c using radioisotopes works. Specificially, as I > understand the technique, one looks at the relative amounts of one isotope > of say carbon in a specimen. The population of carbon is presumed to > initially contain the same portion of a non-stable isotope as is found in > the ecology at large, and the carbon is not replaced after the organisms > death. So the proportion containned in the specimen is indicative of how > long that collection has been out of circulation, so to speak. > > So far, so good, but here's my question. Why does the proportion of the > non-stable carbon at large in the environment not reduce at the same rate > as > that found in fossils? Carbon-14 is continually being replenished in the atmosphere: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-14 "Carbon-14 is produced in the upper layers of the troposphere and the stratosphere by thermal neutrons absorbed by nitrogen atoms. When cosmic rays enter the atmosphere, they undergo various transformations, including the production of neutrons. The resulting neutrons participate in the following reaction: n + 14N ? 14C + 1H " However, this replenishment rate is not constant, as it depends on solar activity and the effects of atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons in the 1950's and 1960's. It is necessary to calibrate the carbon-14 dating curve. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating#Calibration The calibration actually improves the accuracy of carbon dating. Tom Davidson Richmond, VA "In May 1993, Dr. Garza traveled to Turin, and examined a shroud sample with the approval of Catholic authorities. "As soon as I looked at a segment in the microscope, I knew it was heavily contaminated," Dr. Garza said. "I knew that what had been radiocarbon dated was a mixture of linen and the bacteria and fungi and bioplastic coating that had grown on the fibers for centuries. We had not dated the linen itself." http://www.uthscsa.edu/mission/spring96/shroud.htm I am no Xtian, I don't buy into virgin births and therefore cannot consider the "messiah" to be the bastard son of any "god", but I do accept crucifixion and woven fabric were commonplace 80 generations of 25 years each ago, the fabric probably made on a loom built by carpenter and using wrought iron or copper pins and nails. Certainly civil engineering was advanced, metallurgy was advanced, the textile industry was advanced, the ceramics industry was advanced, the glass industry was advanced, they had swords to beat into ploughshares so agriculture was advanced, astronomy was an aid to navigation, etc., etc. and we have the artefacts to show. Not far from where I live is Rochester castle, built on walls of the Caesar period, and the British Museum is home to the Elgin marbles; there can be no question that the people of the period were talented and intelligent craftsmen, artists, bards, mathematicians and engineers. http://www.museum-security.org/elginmarbles.html The question is just how reliable is carbon dating, given the above caveats stated by Dr. Garza? I'm not going to question dendrochronology or the equivalent carbon 14 date of an object the size of a tree, but I have to have suspicion when it comes to an artefact. Tom, whoop-de-do if you can date something from 40-50 years ago, who really gives a damn? I know of a tree that I can date with some exactness, and I don't need carbon 14 because I planted it. You can use the tree to calibrate the method, but there is still no guarantee that having calibrated you can obtain accurate results from 2,000 years ago, and 50,000 years ago is even more suspicious. And so the bottom line is... The shroud of Turin is possibly 2000 years old, Xtianity certainly is. The Lord said unto Moses, all Jews shall have long noses. It looks like it might be a jewish shroud. Carbon dating is still as unreliable as a nose. http://www.museum-security.org/99/042.html#8 Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.