Radiocarbon Dating by Willard F Libby.

[HMS_Beagle]

If decay rates are constant, then why isn't the calculus constant? I suspect a lot junk science in other dating methods.

LOL! Your blithering is in fine form today.

[Omniskeptical]

LOL! Your blithering is in fine form today.

As is your overconfidence.

[HMS_Beagle]

As is your overconfidence.

I don't think it's overconfidence when someone with zero demonstrated knowledge of C14 dating claims the entire radiocarbon community is wrong and in response I just point and laugh.

(points and laughs)

[Omniskeptical]

I don't think it's overconfidence when someone with zero demonstrated knowledge of C14 dating claims the entire radiocarbon community is wrong and in response I just point and laugh.

(points and laughs)

There is no reason why radiometric dating should use a differential equation. The equation assumes decay rate slows. Since the decay rates in the equation cannot be said to be constant, any talk of a constant decay rate is pure blither. But scientists have fooled themselves into thinking it is constant. Wouldn't the decay rate rather speed up with time? It is implied. But scientists would have us believe the reverse.

Is decay really being detected by the Geiger counter, or is it just static and radioactivity? Is it reasonable to assume that most elements have an nonlimited full-life?

Do infinite half-lives exist? Why should there be a half-life when there should be a full-life? Why are there limitless half-lives? The equation doesn't reflect reality.

There is no evidence decay rates are exponential.

[pancreasman]

DOH! Just for a laugh, consider this:

You have 32 marbles, but you are steadily losing marbles at a constant rate (as evidenced by your recent posts.) Every minute you lose half your marbles. Thus, The number of marbles you have every minute is thus:

32, 16, 8, 4, 2, 1

Plot these numbers on a graph and, what do we see, an exponential curve described by CALCULUS.

I accept your apology.

[Omniskeptical]

DOH! Just for a laugh, consider this:

You have 32 marbles, but you are steadily losing marbles at a constant rate (as evidenced by your recent posts.) Every minute you lose half your marbles. Thus, The number of marbles you have every minute is thus:

32, 16, 8, 4, 2, 1

Plot these numbers on a graph and, what do we see, an exponential curve described by CALCULUS.

I accept your apology.

Duh? Anyway, I think of a ball bouncing up and down, and it bounces half as high each time. It the law of averages for the balls momentum, so it eventually doesn't bounce noticeably. Under ideal conditions, it will not stop bouncing.
But a group of atoms is not a bouncing ball. If one soberly believes decay rates don't change, the graph would be a straight line going down.

Good anecdote though.

[HMS_Beagle]

Duh? Anyway, I think of a ball bouncing up and down, and it bounces half as high each time. It the law of averages for the balls momentum, so it eventually doesn't bounce noticeably. Under ideal conditions, it will not stop bouncing.
But a group of atoms is not a bouncing ball. If one soberly believes decay rates don't change, the graph would be a straight line going down.

Good anecdote though.

Ahem...

bouncingBall.gif

Doesn't look like a straight line to me.

(points and laughs again)

[Omniskeptical]

Ahem...

[ATTACH=CONFIG]5460[/ATTACH]

Doesn't look like a straight line to me.

(points and laughs again)

But I didn't radiometric dating is like a bouncing ball.