With Jay L. Wile on C14 Build-up

1) Correspondence with Tas Walker on C14 Re-Calibration Problems, 2) With Jay L. Wile on C14 Build-up

Wednesday 21-X-2015, 16:30

Me to Jay L. Wile

Good day! As you I am YEC. I am currently modelling a buildup scenario for C14 content, from 3/64 at Flood (extrapolated from this being the mean between 1/16 and 1/32 for getting ages between 20.000 and 40.000 years, perhaps should have taken 5/128 instead?). Now, if I start out there, each seventy years multiply by 127/128 for the radioactive decay, and add 1/128 (i e same processes assumed to be at work now), guess where we land in 2013? 45% and something. How would you model it?

Wednesday 21-X-2015

Jay L. Wile to me

I am not sure that I understand what you are doing. Do you have a paper or something that describes this in more detail?

Wednesday 21-X-2015

Me to Jay L. Wile

I have blog posts.

I have tried different approaches to the modelling.

I am now preparing another one.

Do you read French?

If so here is the first of a series of blog posts:

New blog on the kid : Datation de Carbone 14, comment ça carre avec la Chronologie Biblique
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2015/10/datation-de-carbone-14-comment-ca-carre.html

Wednesday 21-X-2015

Jay L. Wile to me

I don't read French. One thing you have to remember is that carbon-14 is constantly made in the atmosphere because cosmic rays from the sun produce neutrons by colliding with atoms in the atmosphere, and those neutrons can collide with nitrogen-14 atoms, making carbon-14 and a hydrogen atom. Thus, any model that tries to track carbon-14 over time must take into account the activity of the sun, which affects the amount of cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere.

Wednesday 21-X-2015

Me to Jay L. Wile

This time I am trying LITERALLY to follow a slow build up scenario. Decay as now (a constant in each of my models, though I got the time rate wrong in first post or first two posts by assuming the decay of 1/64 = 1/32*5730 years). Compensation by C14 production as now. That would, assuming a constant percentage now, be 1/128 added in the same time as 1/128 decays. That means: 1 * 127/128 = 127/128 127/128 + 1/128 = 1 Every 70 years. Now, I am doing same operations, but starting out with 3/64 in 2957 BC. Stability (1 or thereabout) is NOT reached BC. It is not reached even now. We would in this scenario be having 45% and some decimals of the stable C14 content. Which of course involves we would reinterpret previous C14 contents as if division by 0.45 etc were division by 1. Do you see now?

Wednesday 21-X-2015

Jay L. Wile to me

The problem is that the production of carbon-14 in the atmosphere isn't constant by any means. Look at figure 2 in this link:

Journal of Cosmology
Alterations and cyclic fluctuations in solar activity may be linked to periods of global warming and global cooling (Eddy, 1976; Jansen et al., 2007), extremes in weather and storm activity (Khare and Nigam 2006), and possibly even health and disease (Joseph and Wickramasinghe 2010; Wainwright et al…
http://journalofcosmology.com/ClimateChange104.html

Those data come from tree rings, so they are very reliable. A constant replenishment just doesn't work.

Wednesday 21-X-2015

Me to Jay L. Wile

Ah, you would agree then that the replenishment needs to be greater between Flood and well recorded and well dated history than between that (say 507 BC) and our time?

Wednesday 21-X-2015

Jay L. Wile to me

I don't know. It would depend on the activity of the sun.

Wednesday 21-X-2015

Me to Jay L. Wile

I looked at figure two: "Delta 14C indicates the anomaly of carbon-14 content compared with the modern atmospheric carbon-14 concentration." Would 0 equal the amount we have now?

And thanks for mentioning activity of sun as a variable, though in this case it would if alone have varied far more than the diagram.

Wednesday 21-X-2015

Jay L. Wile to me

Yes, 0 represents what we have today.

Wednesday 21-X-2015

Me to Jay L. Wile

And the "permil" means we are talking of aberrations of 1/10 of 1%?

Wednesday 21-X-2015

Jay L. Wile to me

Well, since the aberrations are up to 30 per mil, that means a few percent, which is larger than the 1/128 you are using in your model.

Thursday 22-X-2015, 12:41

Me to Jay L. Wile

Now, I have several models. However 1/128 would be the MEDIUM value of new atoms added for a stable C14 content, in the same time as 1 is multiplied by 127/128. You are talking about a net result of all over C14 content erring up to 3%, but I am not yet sure over how much time. However, even if for SHORT spells the add for 70 years is even in the last millennium well above 1/128, for the buildup, supposing we had arrived at steady, we would still need such well above adds, but for a LONG period of time. It is of course possible. But I am noting it is not quite uniformitarian. Not that that is an absolute criterium, just that that has been offered as a solution, more or less like that, like in Edgar Andrews' From Nothing to Nature or in Kent Hovind. I am not saying they are wrong, I am saying they are incomplete. Unless I make some radical mathematical discovery while remaking this table.

Thursday 22-X-2015, 14:19

Jay L. Wile to me

I just don't see how a uniform addition will ever make a model that works. We know that the amount of carbon-14 made is not uniform. It changes based on the activity of the sun. Without taking that into account, I don't see how any model would work.

Thursday 22-X-2015

Me to Jay L. Wile

If the activity of the sun is overall cyclical, a uniform addition would in medium equal the NORMAL input from the sun. I am right now agreeing with you, that that will probably NOT work. Sun activity shifting back and forth is one thing, but sun activity taking a trend far off from the present medium (or supposed and near such) is another one. I don't say it can't have happened, I say if it did, I think it did, it was an extraordinary thing. One reason I could think of was if there was a need for an ice age - like if there had been lots of nuke wars just before Flood and God used both Flood waters and ice to cover the radioactivity so it couldn't kill humanity off after the Flood. If so, it would perhaps have been so bad, that the Flood was God's only way of saving mankind from what might be in store if "a star called Wormwood" refers to anything radioactive. (Apoc. 8:10,11). Your link does suggest there can be a connexion between a cause like higher solar activity and a double effect, more C14 added and climate chilling. In that case the same very high solar activity which produced a very much faster rise in C14 would also have caused the well known ice age. Würm and all that (as per creationism currently: only one).

But in that case nuke radioactivity may have contributed too.

Correspondence with Tas Walker on C14 Re-Calibration Problems

1) Correspondence with Tas Walker on C14 Re-Calibration Problems, 2) With Jay L. Wile on C14 Build-up

I

HGL to Tas Walker

05/10/15 à 13h19

An incomplete somewhat different approach to recalibration

How incomplete? Well, I am showing only four dates. Cyrus 2500 BP, Trojan War 3100 BP, birth of Abraham, 4030 BP, Flood 4972 BP.

The good part is that I have used "original C14 content" as the main factor, counting in 1/32 of present content.

And for you there might be a bad part about the explanatory text being in French, but on the other hand, as you know what it is about, you will not be needing it:

New blog on the kid : Datation de Carbone 14, comment ça carre avec la Chronologie Biblique
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2015/10/datation-de-carbone-14-comment-ca-carre.html

My "curve" is very angular. Between Trojan War and birth of Abraham, EVERY difference of 1/32 takes 155 years. Between birth of Abraham and Flood, EVERY difference takes 37.7 years. You will know the proper techniques for smoothing out the curve.

Hans Georg Lundahl

PS, and of course, for filling in the "apparent carbon age" (according to uniformitarian presuppositions) in the right hand column between my given points./HGL

II

Tas Walker to HGL

12/10/15 à 05h19

RE: An incomplete somewhat different approach to recalibration

A graph of the calibration curve would be helpful.

III

HGL to Tas Walker

12/10/15 à 10h35

RE: An incomplete somewhat different approach to recalibration

Well, I am very much less good at graphs than at tables.

However, I discovered a little about the issue while doing tables.

At the time of the Flood, if carbon ages are 20 - 50.000 years, the midway amount of C14 in the atmosphere the years up to the Flood would have been about 3/64 of the present amount - at least proportionally. Assuming carbon content overall is the same now as after Flood, that means that between Flood and 2500 years ago 1/64 of present content has been added about every 40/50 years.

The problem with that is that if we are in an equilibrium (and a constant rate since 2500 years ago at least suggests that), then cosmic radiation replenishes C14 at same rate as C14 decays. However, cosmic radiation replenishing is usually presumed to have been constant. And this constant is way beyond 40/50 years, for 1/64 of C14 content it is about 179 years.

If we are getting new C14 at same rate as medium rate between Flood (4972 years ago) and 2500 years ago, we ought to have 55/32 of present C14 content. Or if C14 content has only remained proportional since 2500, we would have been emitting more fossile carbon (C14-free carbon) than one assumes, like enough to extend an "effective replenishing rate" (i e replenishing plus extension) of 40/50 years to proportionally a replenishing only rate of 179 years.

You see, if C14 content is constant, we are dealing with a replenishing rate equal to the rate of radioactive decomposition.

This is 5730 years for 1/2 of content, roughly 5730/2 for 1/4 content, roughly 5730/4 for 1/8 of content, roughly 5730/8 for 1/16 content, roughly 5730/16 for 1/32 of content and roughly 5730/32 for 1/64 of content. Which is 179 years.

If instead we take C14 as continually rising since Creation, up to 2500 BP/500 B Chr, then we get a C14 at Flood of about 1/2 present content, and ages for Flood buried fossils would by carbon dating be far more recent than 20 - 50.000 years.

If cosmic radiation was more intense, that may have been part of why life spans shortened, and the clothing of skin that stone age peoples had would have been like skin ponchos to protect from skin cancer and other cancers. Troglodytism would have had same function.

Equator might at certain times have been a zone which one could cross and get a cancer or live in and die very soon in cancer.

Possible exception for the darkest skins, but even there I am hesitating.

Hans Georg Lundahl

IV

HGL to Tas Walker

14/10/15 à 11h48

two more tables

New blog on the kid : Correction de la table, taux de C14, et implications
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2015/10/correction-de-la-table-taux-de-c14-et.html

If you don't read French, the comments are about the kind of implications I was writing about.

The latter of the two tables gives a pretty nice curve, but with one 32nd of present C14 content added each 11 years for a century before it calms down, we are talking about a major (I think) radioactive disaster, like a nuke war before the Flood, mercifully buried in deep sea oceanic basins or so. IF that could affect a N atom down there and produce C14 that could mount to the surface.

A steady rise between Creation and 2500 BP is out, in that case the Flood year would already have nearly 1/2 of present rate and the fake age added by uniformatarianism would be only one half life. Which is not what I have seen on your site. (Your as in CMI).

A somewhat steady rise between Flood and 2500 BP is possible, but in that case Abraham "would have been dated at birth" to far older than Woolley's Ur and we might try Urfa instead. Which is not necessarily a problem if Göbekli Tepe is Tower of Babel and if Biblical Erech could be Urkesh instead of Warka. Just sent a mail to those excavating Urkesh.

Hans Georg Lundahl

V

HGL to Tas Walker

19/10/15 à 11h19

This table models a hypothesis which inserted history (dated vs recorded) proves unreal

New blog on the kid : Une hypothèse à ne pas retenir
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2015/10/une-hypothese-ne-pas-retenir.html

The hypothesis being that C14 production in atmosphere abruptly rose to 3,854118132619418, nearly 4 times the present production for each 70 years, stayed that level to 367 av. J. Chr. /B. Chr. daté comme/dated as 317, and abruptly dropped to present level of prodction which balances out the decay.

Do you have any tips for calibrating additions each 70 years (that is the time for decay to 127/128, right?) to a neat curve which fits known chronology and probable matches better?

Should a bell curve do with higher additions at start, lower at end and faster change in the middle? I mean of course right half of a bell curve.

Hans Georg Lundahl

Avec/Mit SSPX sur/über St Nicolas du Chardonnet & Ostracisme/Ostracismus

I

HGL à Schwandegg, en allemand

Am 07.10.2015 um 23:45

Jurisdiction, canonisch, über alle Priester der Bruderschaft?

Nun, ich weiss nicht ob Pabst Michael damit ganz einverstanden ist, aber er hält zu entweder ihm gehorchen oder der "neukirchlichen" Hierarchie.

Also, Mgr Fellay, Hochwürden haben so zu sagen canonisch Jurisdiction über z B den vorigen Pfarrer von St Nicolas du Chardonnet, Nahmens Xavier Beauvais, und dem Jetzigen?

Ich werde da behandelt als sei ich ein Ketzer, weil ich:

• "Pabst Franz" nicht anerkenne;
• den Heliozentrismus für immer noch einen Irrtum und immer noch, wie in 1633, für verdammungsWÜRDIG halte.

D h, mir gegenüber haben die es nicht so gesagt, sonder sie haben gemieden mich ausserhalb der Beichte zu sprechen, wass mich natürlich jede Möglichkeit entzieht mit meinen Gegnern in dieser Pfarre mich zu versöhnen, und daher mir die Versöhnung mit Gott, die auch Vergeben meiner Schuldnern vordert, auch ebendamit entzieht.

Ich denke wir sind Catholiken, nicht Hinduer wo z B ein Obdachloser für einer Pariah-Kaste angehörend gehalten werden kann. Und wenn die mich für einen Trunkenbolden halten, nun, dann hören sie meinen Verläumdern ausserhalb der Kirche oder der Tradition eher zu als mir.

Hans Georg Lundahl

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Tower of Babel, Limited Universe, Geocentrism and Seasons
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2015/10/on-tower-of-babel-limited-universe.html

II

Abbé Ludger Grün à HGL

08/10/15 à 15h04

Re: Jurisdiction, canonisch, über alle Priester der Bruderschaft?

Cher M. Lundahl, L'état de votre ame est inquietant et dangereux. Vous ne vous appuyez que sur votre propre jugement. Ce n'est que vous-mêmes qui a un jugement valable sur les choses. Vous ne dépendez pas sur personne sauf de votre propre choix. Vous ne suivez personne sauf ceux que vous avez choisi vous-mêmes. Donc, vous êtes l'instance suprème. Ca, ce n'est pas catholique. Il semble que vous avez perdu la fois de votre baptème. Si c'est vraie, vous êtes sur la route qui mène à l'enfer. Je prie notre Dame Immaculée de vous convertir et de vous aider.

Saluations dans le Seigneur

Abbé Ludger Grün

III

HGL à Abbé Ludger Grün

08/10/15 à 16h32

Re: Jurisdiction, canonisch, über alle Priester der Bruderschaft?

"Vous ne suivez personne sauf ceux que vous avez choisi vous-mêmes."

• 1) Dans un sens, c'est faux, car je n'ai pas été parmi les six électeurs en 1990, ni n'ai-je influencé directement la décision d'un évêque de sacrer Pape Michel en évêque ce qui eut lieu le dimanche de Gaudete 2011, il avait été ordiné prêtre la veille.
• 2) Dans un autre sens, c'est vrai - et vous avez fait pareil. Ou pire.

J'ai décidé de reconnaître Pape Michel comme pape, provisoirement. Vous avez décidé de considérer les papes de Vatican II comme papes.

Par contre, j'ai demandé les avis de ce pape et je les ai suivis, tandis que vous ne suivez pas les avis des papes que vous prétendez reconnaître.

Pour le reste:

Je ne me suis pas tourné à Mgr Fellay pour avoir de la pastorale, mais pour avoir de la justice contre ceux qui m'ont, bien avant ma reconnaissance de Pape Michel, déjà en 2010, rendu trop onéreux dans mes affaires temporels et dans mon corps de suivre la pastorale que vous prétendez offrir à St Nicolas du Chardonnet.

Vous êtes peut-être en famille avec l'Abbé Johannes Grün? Sa pastorale par écrit m'a rendu ma situation dangéreuse en Suède.

Le péril qu'il voulait m'éviter était d'avoir un noviciat échoué à partir d'un postulat qu'il aurait jugé prématuré en 1997. Le péril qu'il m'a fait courir m'a retenu en misères, en colères - et celles-ci bien justes - et en périls pour mon âme. Si j'avais échoué le postulat et le noviciat, je serais déjà marié. Pour votre proche, je suis resté célibataire, et je maudis Dieu et le prochain pour ce malfait, comme il l'est pour moi.

La question du mariage ou de la vie consacrée avec célibat n'est PAS une question sur laquelle un catholique est TENU à suivre le conseil de ses pasteurs. C'est une question souverainement libre.

J'étais dans un position dans laquelle je n'étais plus pleinement libre, mais alors il m'aurait fallu soit gagner la main de la fille qui était dans le lemme primaire de mon voeu, soit me rendre le plus vite possible à l'autre lemme, c à d un monastère. J'ai finalement regagné la liberté de me marier en échouant une seconde fois de tenir ce voeu, car selon St Thomas on est obligé à deux essais échoués, ensuite on a une dispensation latae sententiae, selon les lois des papes. Vous ne pouvez pas m'objeter que ce voeu désormais est toujours sous dispensation papale ou à tenir avec une vie célibataire, car le texte de 1917 dit "coram communitatem", ce que le mien n'était pas. Il était beaucoup plutôt émis dans une situation analogue à celui de Luther quand il criait "Hilf mir, Sankt Anna, ich will Mönch werden". Donc, un genre de voeu dont le code de 1917 ne parle même pas. Encore moins réserve à la dispensation papale.

Alors, j'ai suivi les lois canoniques antérieures à 1917 et je me suis retrouvé en liberté de me marier, ce que précisément vous m'avez gâché, très systématiquement à St Nicolas. Et déjà votre proche avec le conseil donné en 1997, si ce conseil m'a valu la liberté canonique de me marier, il m'a aussi remis dans une situation temporelle dans laquelle cette liberté ne m'a pas été possible à en profiter.

Comme je viens de dire, la lettre précédante n'était point du tout un appel à me faire de la pastorale, il est de juger les prêtres à St Nicolas qui m'ont condamné à une vie socialement isolé des Catholiques. Car j'imagine très mal que les paroissiens sont tenu à éviter également les gens de Novus Ordo version conservatrice, ou de l'Institut Bon Pasteur, ou encore.

Si vous me considérez comme un haereticus vitandus, vous avez à faire un, soit jugement, soit au moins déclaration qui me soit accessible par exemple pour y répondre ou par exemple pour montrer à mes lecteurs que vous chipotez avec moi d'une manière que vous n'acceptériez jamais pour un de vos paroissiens.

Si vous ne me considérez pas comme un haereticus vitandus, vous n'avez pas à me traîter en pratique comme un tel non plus.

Tout n'est pas pastorale, tout n'est pas théologie mystique et quels sacrifices me rendraient mon âme plus belle, il y a aussi la morale commune, il y a aussi la loi canonique.

"Il semble que vous avez perdu la fois de votre baptème."

La "fois" peut-être (das Mal: das erste oder zweite Mal?), mais la FOI (der Glaube), non.*

Vous m'accusez très à tort. Vous auriez tout aussi bien pu dire que Francisco Franco avait perdu la foi de son baptême les années avant de se marier avec Carmen Pilar. Évidemment non. Il était tiède, je suis glacé, mais tiède ou glacé sont des péchés contre la charité et non pas contre la foi.

Et si vous prétendez déceler un quelconque péché contre la foi, vous avez non seulement le droit mais le devoir de me signaler. Quelle thèse est ici en cause?

Ou est-ce que vous êtes tombé, vous-même, dans un esprit d'évangélique ou la foi se mesure à la ferveur et la ferveur à l'obéissance à ses pasteurs? Êtes vous des Catholiques encore ou êtes vous devenue eine Freikirche, comme les Pentécôtistes ou les Southern Baptist?

Hans Georg Lundahl

* Le français est un drôle de dialecte du Latin. "Vicem" et "Fidem" se prononcent de même, et s'épèlent presque de même, juste un s qui diffère: fois=vicem, foi=fidem.