Discussing Carbon 14

David K. Muncie

Admin, Principal contributor

27.XI.2023

Half rates, Does this make any sense?

Let us use C-14 because it’s the fastest used in dating.

C-14 in a weed is at atmospheric equilibrium in the say 4 months of its life. Then it dies and no new C-14 can enter it, by any means, not by water or air or any means, so the time clock starts ticking in 5730 half the c-14 has decayed and by 11460 years another 50% has decayed, by 100,000 years the last c-14 element decays, why did some c-14 decay by say 100 years and other last 100,000 years they are the same, they were taken in at the same time, and why is 5730 the magic number where exactly 50% of the remainder vanishes? This whole concept doesn’t make sense, I know the math behind it, but I really don’t except that the formula is accurate and never has one half life of any of the radioactive elements ever been observed so it really is no but an assumption, and a ridiculous one at that.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"This whole concept doesn’t make sense, I know the math behind it, but I really don’t except that the formula is accurate and never has one half life of any of the radioactive elements ever been observed so it really is no but an assumption, and a ridiculous one at that."

5730 years can be deduced from observing the halflife in shorter periods.

5730 years is down to 50 % of original content.

So, 2865 years would be down to ... if you know the A4 related formats and can use them on a xerox machine, you have already seen it : 71 % or 70.7 % ...

1432 or 1433 years would leave what of the orignal? Sqrt of 0.707 etc is 84.09 %.

Are there objects known to be from 590 AD which can be carbon dated? Yes.

716 years leaves what? 91.7 %

Are there objects from 1307 AD which can be carbon dated? Yes.

Instead of a half life of 5730 years and a stable c. 100 percent modern carbon, one could theorise the possibility of for instance 11460 years and the carbon level still rising.

I think that can be excluded, as I think there are objects from 50 years ago or so, which we know the carbon 14 content in back then, and can check the carbon 14 content now. BUT ... let's suppose it couldn't. It would not do much of a difference.

I suppose, as a Young Earth Creationist, that the carbon 14 level has been roughly stable since the time when Troy fell, 1179 BC.

If the halflife were twice what it is, that would mean the level when Troy fell was 4/5 of 100 percent modern carbon instead.

We would still need a carbon 14 rise after the Flood. And not just the rate at which on that view carbon 14 had risen since the time when Troy fell. But a higher rate.

David K. Muncie

Author, Admin

Hans-Georg Lundahl, How long has carbon 14 decay been under observation in a single sample?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I looked up, and the answer seems to be:

The method was developed in the late 1940s at the University of Chicago by Willard Libby.

I e, the oldest sample possible (not sure if actually extant) answering to the criteria of tested then and tested now would be 78 years old between the tests. It should have 99.061 % of what it had back then. If the half life were twice as long, it should instead have the percentage for 39 years, as now counted. That's 99.529 %.

If samples from 1307 and around then, reasonably presumed to have been effectively sealed off since then, have 91.7 pmC (percent modern carbon, corrected for pre-industrial values) or around that, either it had 100 pmC or around that and a halflife of 5730 years, or if it has a significantly longer halflife, the carbon 14 content in 1307 was significantly lower than now.

David K. Muncie

Author, Admin

Hans-Georg Lundahl the problem is no one is interested in running another test to verify the decay rate.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Apart from measuring the decay in samples already tested, I don't think there is need of any.

THAT is a much surer test than testing the rate in one year in a lab.

My reason AGAINST decay rates of Uranium or Potassium 40 is, you cannot do this kind of over centuries test for either of them.

Btw, the difference between straight 100 pmC X half life 5730 years and carbon level rising from 80 to 100 pmC in 3000 years X half life 11460 years, for the amount of time we can have sure historic samples from is actually LESS than the deviations we actually have in calibrations, like the Hallstatt plateau, if you've heard of it.

I've done the math and I've compared to the calibrations.

So, in practise this doesn't matter.

This is in no way, shape or form an endorsement for taking carbon dates like 39 000 BP at face value. From the Flood to the Fall of Troy, carbon 14 rose very rapidly, was produced up to 10 times or a little more as fast as now, and 39 000 BP in a real Biblical calibration translates as 2957 BC, because the supervolcano explosions, including the so dated Campi Flegrei, are from the Flood, and it happened in 2957 BC. It's just that while decay happened since then at half life 5730, back then the atmospheric content was 1.625 pmC - around 1/61 or 1/62 of what it is now.