Cool. So school me on where I can read and understand this myself (web is best, obviously).
But with something like beta decay that is a sufficient statistical universe to put the burden of proof on anyone who claims that the decay rate is not a constant. Bring evidence, not supposition.
Prove your point. You have made an Appeal to Authority. While I won't sya it was a falacious appeal, I do realize that we have observed less than 1/57 of a c14 half life, and are extrapolating from there. This causes me concern about the "statistical universe" you refer to. Give a website with data that can be compared and analyzed. So many of these assumptions are akin to the "Mann Hockey Stick" in my mind.
This example is only valid if the trees used for calibrating the C14 curve are the plantation pine Pinus radiata. It would be silly to use species known to do multiple rings.
Since the Bristlecone is of the same Genus Pinus the burden of proof is on the Dendrochronologist to prove the assumption that they don't put on multiple rings like other trees in the same Genus. I mean, what basis do they have to say that Bristlecone puts on only one ring per year?
Why throw RATE in the discussion? We have enough here to keep us busy.
2. There is no relation between the C14 half-life and the beta decay constant. They are two different things. One need not observe beta decay for any specific time in relation to the C14 half-life, as beta decay is observed in other radioactives. You can observe beta decay in materials with other half-lives, and don't have to limit your search just to C14. It is the little disintegrations (beta decay) that are measured, and the samples contain millions to billions of them; that is the statistical universe I mentioned. To argue the opposite you have to show that in one or more cases the rate of decay changes. This is bonehead physics. If you disagree, bring evidence.
3. Reread my point about volcanos and tree rings. If historical events can be correlated with tree rings for a couple of thousand years, you are not getting multiple rings to any appreciable extent.
4. The RATE Project is relevant as they set out with over a million dollars of creationists money to disprove radiometric dating, and failed.
Until you can bring some evidence to support your contentions it is useless to continue explaining this to you. You can do "what ifs" all day, and it doesn't amount to a hill of beans without some evidence that your "what if" is real, likely, or even possible.
Bring evidence of hugely variable beta decay. Bring evidence that the tree rings don't correlate with volcanic activity. If you want to argue for a young earth you will need to bring a lot of evidence because you will have to overturn most all of modern science.