Questions on carbon dating


19-Mar-2020 06:34

Manning noted that "scholars working on the early Iron Age and Biblical chronology in Jordan and Israel are doing sophisticated projects with radiocarbon age analysis, which argue for very precise findings. But our work indicates that it's arguable their fundamental basis is faulty -- they are using a calibration curve that is not accurate for this region." Applying their results to previously published chronologies, the researchers show how even the relatively small offsets they observe can shift calendar dates by enough to alter ongoing archaeological, historical and paleoclimate debates.

Furthermore, there is evidence that the main radioactive elements were concentrated in a layer low in the mantle and came to the surface progressively after that.It is through this mechanism that the radiometric age of the universe is usually calculated as being on the order of ten billion years.Professor Fowler did exactly this and has maintained his calculated radiometric age for the universe at about 10 billion years, with which I am basically in agreement.Both are, however, 'children' of the same parent -- the Zero Point Energy.

Because of this, and because the speed of light is in the numerator of every reduced radio decay rate equation, any changes in the speed of light are indicating changes in atomic decay rates. Importantly, the original short half-life elements were also a contributor and they have gone now.Interestingly, using these sorts of ratios, one piece of moon rock dated as being 8.2 billion years old, to the amazement of the dating laboratory involved.