How reliable is science? (Assumption 3/7) (The limitations of science)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Friday, April 20, 2012, 00:40 (4599 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

[edit]
> > 
> > And by "exists everywhere" I mean the authors of papers based on these artifacts are *forced* to try and explain why the dates don't match. In nearly all cases... the arguments are dropped, because you can't argue with radiation.
> > 
> From your article:
> 
> >Radioactive carbon, that is 14C, occurs naturally and is formed continuously in the atmosphere. As cosmic radiation from space enters the earth's atmosphere, neutrons are created that slow down as they collide with nitrogen atoms. These collisions result in a 14C atom and a proton. The 14C combines with oxygen to form CO and CO2 that then mix with the bulk of the atmosphere containing the other stable isotopes of carbon (e.g., 12C and 13C). These latter isotopes are present in the atmosphere in amounts of 98.9% of 12C and 1.1% of 13C. The 14C exists in a known ratio with these two other forms of carbon such that the dynamic equilibrium concentration ratio, between 14C and 12C + 13C, is about one in 1012.
> 
> So, am I to understand that you are saying that an isotope that was FORMED by cosmic radiation can no longer be affected by it, and that cosmic radiation can have no effect because the elements are embedded in sedimentary layers even though you yourself point out that cosmic radiation passes through the whole of the earth? 
> -We're dangerously at my limit for correct information, but the rarity of a cosmic ray hitting an atom (and it NEEDS to be a direct hit) means that the isotope you discuss here is necessarily a single atom. -> >In principle, then, there is not a period in Iron-Age history that cannot be investigated using radiocarbon dating. As long as assumptions hold (the iron-based material is manufactured using only contemporaneous charcoal—no old wood, no reworking, no coal, no limestone flux), the radiocarbon dating of iron-based materials has been shown to be very reliable.
> 
> Those are pretty major assumptions. Also, as I mentioned in my other post, other fuel sources used come from organic materials, like trees, that can live for hundreds if not thousands of years and that draw the carbon molecules that make up their structure from all around them. I.E. A tree with a deeper root system could be drawing carbon from different sedimentary layers, causing further error. This same is true for all organic life, as what we consume becomes part of us, such that any particular carbon element could have come from one of a wide variety of sources. They assume that all sources are contemporary, that is an invalid assumption. The circle of life makes certain of that. 
> -Those assumptions are major, until you consider that all the artifacts under consideration are weapons of varying degrees of manufacture. -Many things can go into making a weapon of that nature, but if you have historical records of processes... and especially in the case of Spain, China, and Japan we DO have those kinds of records... the assumptions aren't superfluous. -Again... the error is built into the date range. -> For example, if a tree was felled and hauled from its original location, and for whatever reason was left in a different location where it rotted and became part of a sedimentary layer over time, you have introduced something that we can not account for nor would we likely even notice.-We can though, because a dead tree isn't going to absorb much C-14.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"