Back in 2015, I started out with two data. And a kind of non-datum.
A) Less carbon 14 in the atmosphere when a sample was from means the sample looks older than it is. I'm not talking about the reservoir effect, I am talking about the whole atmosphere behind the sample.
B) The rise of carbon 14 in the atmosphere never ever needed so much radioactivity that it would have wiped out vertebrate life.
C) In principle one should be able to calibrate the rise, but CMI hadn't done it (I didn't know about Tas Walker's rough calibration or I thought it rougher than needed).
I was talking to people at Nanterre University campus, especially the library, and I mentioned datum A. I got as reply a negation of datum B. I decided to look for an answer to that.
Obviously, my first reaction was to start with what I knew or could easily deduce from what I already knew.
Here is my very first preparatory message, in French:
Datation de Carbone 14, comment ça carre avec la Chronologie Biblique
https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2015/10/datation-de-carbone-14-comment-ca-carre.html
Here is my improved version at the end of this initial quest:
Avec un peu d'aide de Fibonacci ... j'ai une table, presque correcte
https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2015/10/avec-un-peu-daide-de-fibonacci-jai-une.html
It is kind of idealised, but corresponds to the idea that the main brunt of the augmentation was soon after the Flood, and then the augmentation slowed down up to stability.
While looking, I had proven that to get to 100 pmC after the Flood, I needed to have carbon 14 forming faster than at present at some time:
Examinons une hypothèse qui se trouve contrefactuelle un peu de près
https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2015/10/examinons-une-hypothese-qui-se-trouve.html
And after the Fibonacci inspired table, I tried current rate of production for pre-Flood times, starting with zero, and got too high a value, so the pre-Flood production must have been lower, at east relative to overall carbon which was then higher, I presume:
Une table peut-être évitable ou contournable?
https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2015/11/une-table-peut-etre-evitable-ou.html
While I use the chronology of St. Jerome, I am interested in the patriarchal longevity for LXX standard text:
Longevity Charts as per LXX
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2015/11/longevity-charts-as-per-lxx.html
About a year later, I came to doubt on the Fibonacci table. And made a plan for improving it:
A Fault in my Tables? A Plan for Improvement?
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2016/11/a-fault-in-my-tables-plan-for.html
This post is connected to debates with Roger Pearlman. But I also set out to actually first determine the limits of recalibration before modifying, here is the work of that, mainly January 2017:
1.) 50% du "carbone récent", quel âge? Si on divisait une demi-vie en "demi-notes" ....? · 2.) 25% du "carbone récent"? Divisons la distance en 48 parties? · 3.) Trêve de Maths pour l'instant : a-t-on des restes antédiluviennes d'Européens ou non? · 4.) 12,5% du carbone présent : au paléolithique tardif · 5.) Encore "plus bas" dans le paléolithique : 6,25 % restent · 6.) Paléolithique inférieur, alors? · 7.) Raffiner et finir ma table de Fibonacci? · 8.) Table modifiée, analysée par convergence avec l'a priori
Before the end, I feature another recalibration, in response to a remark by Osgood and partially in response to my idea Göbekli Tepe could be Babel:
1) Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Osgood and the Dating of Abraham? And I am Wrong on Fibonacci Table · 2) Creation vs. Evolution : Recalibrating the Fibonacci Table, acc. to Abraham in Chalcolithic En Gedi · 3) If Göbekli Tepe is Tower of Babel ...
Over the next months, I was interested in getting the tables done, even comparing the St. Jerome / Roman Martyrology chronology to the Syncellus one:
Interim Report (4.III.20217) · Flood to Abraham, St Jerome A (6.III.2017) · Flood to Abraham, St Jerome B (8.III.2017) · Interim II St Jerome A / St Jerome Fibonacci (10.III.2017) · Syncellus A bis, B and St Jerome C & D - uncalibrated dates found, setup before making tables (13.III.2017)
I then make a series around Interim III, May—June 2017:
Tas Walker and Myself on C14 : Glacial Maximum and End · Interim III, Flood to Abraham with Syncellus · Continuing Interim III to Joseph in Egypt · Comparing Three Roads from Seven Cows to Seven Trumpets
By July that year, I do a series of responses to Graham Hancock about Göbekli Tepe:
Is Graham Hancock Right on Göbekli Tepe? · Is Graham Hancock Right on Göbekli Tepe? Part 2 · Is Graham Hancock Right on Göbekli Tepe? Part 3 · Is Graham Hancock Right on Göbekli Tepe? Part 4 · Excursus on Previous
In August 2020 I feel that I need to resolve some things I should have included in previous tables, but didn't, the series has for second post "New Tables" from St. Radegundis' Day (13.VIII.2020), but goes all the way into April 2024, discussing minutiae:
Have you Really Taken ALL the Factors into Account? · New Tables · Why Should one Use my Tables? · And what are the lineups between archaeology and Bible, in my tables? · Bases of C14 · An example of using previous · Difference with Carbon 14 from Other Radioactive Methods · Tables I-II and II-III and III-IV, Towards a Revision? · The Revision of I-II, II-III, III-IV May be Unnecessary, BUT Illustrates What I Did When Doing the First Version of New Tables · Convergence of Uneven pmC? · [Calculation on paper commented on] · Other Revision of I-II ? · Where I Agree with Uniformitarian Dating Experts
The "New Tables" are a joint translation of the posts Tables de carbone 14 sur les bases révisées (I - VI) and Tables continués (VI - IX). I had elaborated these on paper, only computer checking the time implications instead of my clumsier calculations, when finally after the lockdown accessing internet and putting these on the blog.
And the discussions of how to improve these, with some opportunism and changing information on what carbon dates Göbekli Tepe started and ended result in:
Newer Tables: Preliminaries · Flood to Joseph in Egypt · Joseph in Egypt to Fall of Troy.
The which I am currently using.
Meanwwhile, datum B, I have checked that I don't need to square or cube the "how much faster" rate of production of carbon 14 to get how much more radiation there was. Other Check on Carbon Buildup is from Thursday, 23 November 2017, and features the probably world best expert on the issue, who wasn't interested in helping me but kind of did so half the way anyway.
Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Dominic of Guzmán
4.VIII.2026
6.VIII Bononiae natalis sancti Dominici Confessoris, qui Ordinis Fratrum Praedicatorum Fundator exstitit. Hic vir, sanctitate et doctrina clarissimus, virginitatem perpetuo illibatam custodivit, et, ob singularem meritorum gratiam, tres mortuos suscitavit; cumque praedicatione sua compressisset haereses, ac plurimos ad religiosam et piam vitam instituisset, in pace quievit. Ejus autem festivitas pridie Nonas mensis hujus celebratur, ex constitutione Pauli Papae Quarti.
4.VIII Sancti Dominici Confessoris, qui Ordinis Fratrum Praedicatorum Fundator fuit, atque octavo Idus mensis hujus in pace quievit.
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire