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