And What About the Lowering of Carbon 14 Level?

Creation vs. Evolution : Article and Details, Please? · Baumgardner Gave the Title, I Found the Link · My Tables End In Real Year 1032 (1028) BC, Dated As 940 · And What About the Lowering of Carbon 14 Level? · HGL'S F.B. WRITINGS : Interaction with John Baumgardner

In 760 to 450, carbon levels either drop from 102.573 to 98.798 pmC, or from 102.14 to 98.38.

760 - 450 = 310 years. From 100 pmC to 96.319 pmC.

102.573*96.319/100 = 98.79728787 pmC
102.14*96.319/100 = 98.3802266 pmC

Very precise coincidence with what the carbon levels should have dropped to to explain the diagram.

BOTH the scenario in which 550 BC is a Cambridge halflife date and the one in which it is a Libby halflife date are compatible, with, roughly speaking, no new carbon 14 produced and released in the atmosphere and initial carbon level just falling for samples ranging from 760 to 450. This is an approximation, since there are wiggles between 760 and 450 BC, but the wiggles are indeed around 2500 radiocarbon years or years before present, this being counted uniformly from 1950 back.

So, some new was produced, explaining the peaks, but then decayed.

Let's check if the valleys within the wiggles correspond to the decay theory.

Wait, wrong! Initial carbon content is inversely proportional to radiocarbon years!

Some new was produced, explaining the valleys, but then decayed, explaining the peaks.

From 665 to 595, there is an uneven peak, going from carbon years 2450 to 2540.

1950-2450 = -500
1950-2540 = -590

665-500 = 165 years too young 102.016 pmC
595-590 = 5 years too young or 100.061 pmC

With remaking of Libby to Cambridge?

2450*1.03 = 2523.5
2540*1.03 = 2616.2

1950-2523.5 = -573.5
1950-2616.2 = -666.2

665-573.5 = 91.5 years too young, 101.113 pmC
595-666.2 = -71.2, 71.2 years too old, 99.142 pmC

665 - 595 = 70 years, decay from 100 to 99.157 pmC.

102.016*99.157/100 = 101.15600512 > 100.061 pmC
101.113*99.157/100 = 100.26061741 > 99.142 pmC

Here, for some reason, it would seem that the carbon level has fallen slightly lower within the timespan than only "decay of atmospheric sample" could explain.

100.061*100/102.016 = 98.08363393977
99.142*100/101.113 = 98.05069575623

100 - 99.157 = 0.843
100 - 98.08363393977 = 1.91636606023
100 - 98.05069575623 = 1.94930424377

Counting in pmC points disappearing, more than twice as fast as normal decay. I am somewhat non-plussed.

I'll consult Baumgardner on what he thinks could have happened.

But first, I'll try to extrapolate the half lives extrapolated from this decay ...

5730 / 70 = 81.85714285714
1/81.85714285714 = 0.01221640489
0.5^{0.01221640489} = 0.99156798395
0.5^x = 98.08363393977
0.5^x = 98.05069575623

From there, 1/x*70 = what the halflife would be if calibrated on just that stretch.

But right now, I don't know how to get x, so I'll thank the sites that help me calculate all this (neither of them creationist):

https://www.math.upenn.edu/~deturck/m170/c14/carbdate.html
for carbon level / years

http://calc.name/
for simple calculations.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
XIX Lord's Day after Pentecost
11.X.2020