Carbon Dating Questions

[brianj]

My opinion is that the big bang lie was created to bring ex nihilo creation Christians into a belief that is sustained by the modern scientific theorist and the globalist community.

So...
Your opinion is that a mathematical model that does a pretty good job of describing what anybody with a decent budget and the desire to observe can identify is a lie?

I can't wait to hear you describe why Bernoulli's principle is a lie. Perhaps you will be kind enough to wait until my next flight lands.

[onefour1]

[brianj]

Let me see if I have this straight: anybody, even you, can review the published equations and results of observation, even conduct your own observation and see how it fits with the equations defining big bang theory, but you believe that someone with no real credentials because they say it's all a conspiracy on YouTube videos?

[harakim]

Let me see if I have this straight: anybody, even you, can review the published equations and results of observation, even conduct your own observation and see how it fits with the equations defining big bang theory, but you believe that someone with no real credentials because they say it's all a conspiracy on YouTube videos?

Reviewing equations and publications is usually how you get on this road.

[brlenox]

I hesitate to enter a horse into this race....but one of the things that I always found so interesting is that a Catholic priest, Georges Lemaître, a scientist proposed a theory that matches his religious doctrine perfectly - creation ex nihilo and this was in 1929 before very much at all was known of the actual aspects of cosmology.

In current scientific circles there is actually much debate over the legitimacy of forcing the COBE data to fit what some consider a predefined conclusion in the Big Bang Theory.

Shortly after the COBE (Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) mission) data was released, four scientists of international reputation, Halton Arp, Geoffrey Burbidge, Fred Hoyle and Jayant Narlikar, wrote to the journal, Nature, to criticize both the cosmic microwave background radiation and the red shift as evidence for Big Bang cosmologies. They cite the following failures of current theories: "failure to explain galaxy formation, the failure to find fingerprints of galaxy formation in the microwave background, the failure to identify 'missing mass', the age problem, the baryon-to-photon problem, the top quark mass problem, the Higgs boson mass problem, the inflationary switch-on problem and, ultimately, the origin problem." In their letter of rebuttal P.J.E. Peebles and three other scientists admitted "Arp et al. correctly note that in the standard relativistic hot expanding cosmological model there are many open problems: we cannot explain how the galaxies formed or even the nature of their dominant component, the massive dark halos[i.e., the missing mass supposed to exist in the galaxies in the form of "cold, dark matter" which has yet to show up in any observation]." They concluded, however, that the current standard has not been successfully challenged by its critics. Perhaps we ordinary mortals are at least justified in refusing to have faith in the Big Bang "theology" when many eminent scientists can have such striking disagreements. And, incidentally, the COBE data has been interpreted to offer serious problems for the standard cold-dark-matter model for the universe.67 Thus 90 percent(some say more) of the matter required to make the formation of galaxies possible and to make the standard Big Bang cosmology complete and acceptable has yet to be observed. There is no proof that it exists.

I have long felt that plasma theory made more sense to me.

[BeNotDeceived]

C14 is created all the time by neutrinos from the sun. The rate of neutrinos from the sun varies.

https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress ... image7.png

That's only one of many assumptions made that are only approximations.

...Radiocarbon dating is generally limited to dating samples no more than 50,000 years old, as samples older than that have insufficient 14C to be measurable. Older dates have been obtained by using special sample preparation techniques, large samples, and very long measurement times. These techniques can allow measurement of dates up to 60,000 and in some cases up to 75,000 years before the present.

Radiocarbon dates are generally presented with a range of one standard deviation (usually represented by the Greek letter sigma as 1σ) on either side of the mean. However, a date range of 1σ represents only 68% confidence level, so the true age of the object being measured may lie outside the range of dates quoted.

[BeNotDeceived]

older stars make heavier elements, as they become red giants or white dwarfs.

I think you mean more massive, which actually means the stars die and explode before they can get very old at all.

It depends on how big the star is; our sun is the size that becomes a red-giant.

End of a Star's Life:

... For stars less than about 25 solar masses the end of their lives is to evolve to white dwarfs after substantial mass loss. Due to atomic structure limits, all white dwarfs must mass less than the Chandrasekhar limit. If their initial mass is more than the Chandrasekhar limit, then they must lose their envelopes during their planetary nebula phase till they are below this mass limit. An example of this is the Cat's Eye Nebula shown below:

At what stage a star leaves the AGB (Asymptotic Giant Branch) and becomes a white dwarf depends on how fast it runs out of fuel in its core. Higher mass stars will switch from helium to carbon burning and extend their lifetimes. Even higher mass stars will burn neon after carbon is used up. However, once iron is reached, fusion is halted since iron is so tightly bound that no energy can be extracted by fusion. Iron can fuse, but it absorbs energy in the process and the core temperature drops.

After evolving to white dwarfs, stars with original masses less than 25 solar masses slowly cool to become black dwarfs and suffer heat death. Stars greater than 25 solar masses undergo a more violent end to their lives. Carbon core burning lasts for 600 years for a star of this size. Neon burning for 1 year, oxygen burning about 6 months (i.e. very fast on astronomical timescales). At 3 billion degrees, the core can fuse silicon nuclei into iron and the entire core supply is used up in one day. ...

An inert iron core builds up at this time where successive layers above the core consume the remaining fuel of lighter nuclei in the core. The core is about the size of the Earth, compressed to extreme densities and near the Chandrasekhar limit. The outer regions of the star have expanded to fill a volume as large as Jupiter's orbit from the Sun. Since iron does not act as a fuel, the burning stops.

The sudden stoppage of energy generation causes the core to collapse and the outer layers of the star to fall onto the core. The infalling layers collapse so fast that they `bounce' off the iron core at close to the speed of light. The rebound causes the star to explode as a supernova.

The energy released during this explosion is so immense that the star will out shine an entire galaxy for a few days. ...

[Hidingbehindmyhandle]

I have long felt that plasma theory made more sense to me.

I read quite a lot about plasma theory and the electric universe.
It makes more sense to me than Eisensteinian/Newtonian physics.

It also agrees with what Abraham said about Greater Star governing/feeding lesser stars.

It never made much sense to me that if all the heat was generated in the core of the sun
that the corona would be so, so much hotter.

The plasma model that says a Birkland current feeds the sun and the heat is released
in the corona where the plasma becomes atoms just feels right to me.

Plasma physics has also explained some phenomena that Newtonian Physics
has not been able.