How do you prove that Earth is older than 10,000 years?

Backreaction ^ | Sabine Hossenfelder

[exDemMom]

Thus, the amount of C14 is increasing all the time, so you can’t just look at how much C12 is left, because we no longer have a fixed starting point.

One approach to radioactive dating is to measure the amount of C14 as well as the quantity of the nuclear decay products. The current quantity of the radioisotope + the decay products tells you the original quantity of the radioisotope. Once you know the original and the current quantities, you can figure out how many half lives have elapsed.

Much C14 dating is done by comparing the ratio of C14 to C12. That also gives a good idea of the elapsed time since the organism died.

C14 is constantly being created through interactions of cosmic rays with the atmosphere, and the quantity of C14 ingested by living organisms is proportional to their size. Once they die, they no longer ingest C14. The rate of formation of C14 is almost constant. It probably varies slightly with the activity of the sun, but since the suns activity also cycles, the variations are evened out over time.

The Khan on-line academy has a couple of lessons on C14 dating. Once you do the math yourself, you get a much better understanding of the methodology.

[Zeneta]

Just because it happened a long time ago, doesn’t mean it took a long time to happen.

[Morpheus2009]

Uranium is embedded deep within rock formations, not neccessarily affected by lightning.

[Vermont Lt]

It was here before me. It will be here after. Aside from that, it is a curiosity.

[metmom]

This may be of some interest to you.

The Age of the Universe

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3051495/posts

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1576941/posts

[wbarmy]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/nature/t-rex-blood.html

https://www.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/jun/09/75-million-year-old-dinosaur-blood-and-collagen-discovered-in-fossil-fragments

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur-shocker-115306469/

Retarded is making that comment and not looking up the articles yourself.

[humblegunner]

“Articles” written about something does not make that something any less retarded.

[from occupied ga]

You really missed class the day they covered C14 dating didn't you. The whole point is that c14 is constantly created by natural processes cosmic rays mostly and promptly begins decaying so we reach what is called a "steady state" for C14 in the environment where the rate of formation equals the rate of decay.

When something dies it becomes isolated from c14 uptake - dead things don't eat. So the steady state level of c14 begins to decay at the ~12,000 year half life. An artifact with half the environmental norm of c14 is 12k years old. One with 1/4 the steady state is 24k years old etc.

[mabarker1]

Ya beat Me to it!

I was gonna Post cut it open and then count the Rings.

[Oscar in Batangas]

I can’t personally PROVE that anything existed before October, 1948.

However, I willingly rely on those older than I to be telling the truth about things that happened before I was born.-—Just as I assume that my kids and grandkids believe me when I tell them about things before their time.

I have always held to the possibility that God with His infinite sense of humor could have created the world 6,000 years ago and just made everything LOOK old. (And I’m a retired nuclear physicist who should know better)

[sparklite2]

Take a walk through the Grand Canyon.
But leave your Kool-Aid back at the Rim

[sparklite2]

TBH, the ending of the Battlestar Galactica reboot is the best origin story for Earth’s human race. ;-)

---

It really copped out on who/what Starbucks was, though.
That said, it’s one of my favorite all-time shows.l

[mad_as_he$$]

I thought the OP was well written and interesting. Most theoretical physicists write drivel and try to obscure their faulty theories with BS.

And I am a lowly engineer with a Doctorate in Theology.

[sparklite2]

Would you be willing to forego a controllable test scenario for very high rates of predictability?

[mad_as_he$$]

My general position on meteorology is that if one has the same success rate as great baseball hitters they are considered successful. 0.300 is good enough for both fields. ;-)

[sparklite2]

My state-side VP boss tried to buck up my hesitance in making executive decisions. He said to think like a quarterback, where anything over fifty percent pass completion was good. I thought of it as making irrevocable decisions based on insufficient information. I later learned that this is the art of business.

[LeoTDB69]

Painful to see but incontrovertible proof.

[mad_as_he$$]

Very true. I have known many good and many bad managers/businessmen. Some all data based and some gut instinct based. Most would be considered successful and have a pretty good hit rate. No decision is a decision, once I learned that things got easier. As a business owner myself I make a hundred small decisions every day on experience and gut. The big decisions require data. I was lucky enough to learn from some very good businessmen during my travels.

There are however many(most) science fields that still have unknowns. My back fence neighbor is a “gold” geologist. He is very good and highly sought out for investigations of mining site potential yield. He will admit after few drinks that geology is not an exact science. Sure he can lab test specimens but when it comes to some big issues like “how did this form - exactly” that there are some assumptions.

Meteorology suffers from over mediazation. I quit watching TV for weather forecasts, I go straight to my Indian Weather Rock or the weather service.

[sparklite2]

Since I retired, weather forecasts are only attended to when hurricanes are imminent. Now, I just walk outside and do what needs doing, and if it’s raining, just walk back in. LOL

[calenel]

Not enough Carbon-14 (radiocarbon, C-14, 14C) would be created by lightning to significantly alter 14C dating, however, there are significant fluctuations in the normal 14C creation process (perhaps due to fluctuations in solar radiation or cosmic rays - by which the vast majority of 14C is generated - or other factors like ‘nearby’ novae or supernovae). So there are plenty of reasons to distrust that dating technique, but lightning isn’t a big enough player compared to the Sun to really matter.