Radiocarbon Dating by Willard F Libby.

[JonF]

I know it's hopeless but I have some time to waste:

And your statement proves what exactly? The rate of production doesn't outpace the rate of decay. So average rate is not exponential. Think about it.

You need to specify exactly what you are talking about: the atmosphere, an object which might be carbon-dated, or something else.

In the atmosphere:

Decay rate - Production rate = total change rate, and
Production rate = Decay rate (over reasonably short time)

Substituting the second into the first:

Production rate - Production rate = total change rate

But we know Production rate - Production rate = 0, so

0 = total change rate.

In the atmosphere (over reasonably short time) the amount of 14 C does not change.

In an object which is no longer exchanging carbon with the atmosphere (i.e. dead),

Decay rate1 - Production rate1= total change rate1, and
Production rate1 = 0

Substituting the second into the first:

Decay rate1 - 0 = total change rate1

Or

Decay rate1 = total change rate1

[b]The 14C in the object changes] over short periods of time[/b, and changes exponentially via the well-known and established exponential decay.

[Omniskeptical]

The 14C in the object changes over short periods of time, and changes exponentially via the well-known and established exponential decay.

Established but never proven, since it merely assumed.

[JonF]

Established but never proven, since it merely assumed.

Nope. Proven. As you have ignored so many, many times.

[Kbertsche]

Established but never proven, since it merely assumed.

Completely wrong. The exponential decay curve is a conclusion, not an assumption. It is the direct, unavoidable consequence of a constant decay rate.

You could perhaps claim that a constant decay rate is an "assumption". However, experimental data shows that the decay rate must be nearly constant, if not absolutely so. And there are no remotely believable theories for how a beta-decay rate could be non-constant.

And finally, with modern radiocarbon calibration via dendrochronology, the actual decay rate and any possible variations in it are irrelevant to radiocarbon dating. We would get the same radiocarbon date no matter if the decay rate were constant or not.

[HMS_Beagle]

Completely wrong. The exponential decay curve is a conclusion, not an assumption. It is the direct, unavoidable consequence of a constant decay rate.

You could perhaps claim that a constant decay rate is an "assumption". However, experimental data shows that the decay rate must be nearly constant, if not absolutely so. And there are no remotely believable theories for how a beta-decay rate could be non-constant.

And finally, with modern radiocarbon calibration via dendrochronology, the actual decay rate and any possible variations in it are irrelevant to radiocarbon dating. We would get the same radiocarbon date no matter if the decay rate were constant or not.

Dr. Bertsche, you may be interested to know that over at the IDiot hangout Uncommonly Dense your name is being bandied about. One of the ID/YECs there brought up the RATE group's supposed C14 dating of coal to "prove" an old Earth is wrong. Your article from TalkOrigins was offered as a rebuttal. RATE consultant Paul Giem himself then showed up pooh-poohing your work and defending the Baumgardner/RATE work as accurate.

It would be a real hoot if you showed up there to set the record straight. The discussion on C14 starts here. Note that you have to register to post at UD.

[Omniskeptical]

Nope. Proven. As you have ignored so many, many times.

If decay rates are constant, then why the use of calculus? Perhaps in terms of business Calculus, it is constant? Decay rate shouldn't lessen because there is more nitrogen, or because a junk scientist wants it to be.

[HMS_Beagle]

If decay rates are constant, then why the use of calculus? Perhaps in terms of business Calculus, it is constant? Decay rate shouldn't lessen because there is more nitrogen, or because a junk scientist wants it to be.

Business calculus? You make less sense every time you post. The quality seems to be decaying exponentially.

[Omniskeptical]

Completely wrong. The exponential decay curve is a conclusion, not an assumption. It is the direct, unavoidable consequence of a constant decay rate.

What constant decay rate? Log and exponential functions never have constant rates.

You could perhaps claim that a constant decay rate is an "assumption". However, experimental data shows that the decay rate must be nearly constant, if not absolutely so. And there are no remotely believable theories for how a beta-decay rate could be non-constant.

Thus Log and exponential functions are not a good fit.

And finally, with modern radiocarbon calibration via dendrochronology, the actual decay rate and any possible variations in it are irrelevant to radiocarbon dating. We would get the same radiocarbon date no matter if the decay rate were constant or not.

But at 2 half-lifes, it wouldn't? I am merely cutting the date for the dead sea scrolls by a small amount. Carbon-14 and Nitrogen are naturally excreted by mammals, and there tends to be regionalization in corpses.

While rates haven't been known to change, there are ways to speed nuclear for every known isotope. I don't doubt that there are also ways to slow decay infinitely.

[Omniskeptical]

Business calculus? You make less sense every time you post. The quality seems to be decaying exponentially.

The formula of decay is total business calculus. But there is not a statistic to prove the exponential and logarithmic curves.

[Yttrium]

The formula of decay is total business calculus. But there is not a statistic to prove the exponential and logarithmic curves.

You fail at math forever.

[Omniskeptical]

You fail at math forever.

You don't even know Calculus, or the differential equation.

[Yttrium]

You don't even know Calculus, or the differential equation.

[JonF]

If decay rates are constant, then why the use of calculus? Perhaps in terms of business Calculus, it is constant? Decay rate shouldn't lessen because there is more nitrogen, or because a junk scientist wants it to be.

Could you translate that into English? THANKS.

[Omniskeptical]

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

Edit: Why isn't the derivative constant?

[Omniskeptical]

crap snipped

Oh, you wanted to slander me.