Tuesday, 27 October 2015

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.

2 comments:

  1. shared to the RCCF - 'the recent complex creation framework' page

    ReplyDelete