670 Actual Years = 32 000 or 4000 Carbon Years? Both.

My C14 Calibration, Has it Any Stability? · 670 Actual Years = 32 000 or 4000 Carbon Years? Both.

I went over the article:

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Le premier or, chronologie des pages 42-43 récalibré
https://filolohika.blogspot.com/2017/02/le-premier-or-chronologie-des-pages-42.html

and came up with:

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Le premier or revisité
https://filolohika.blogspot.com/2022/01/le-premier-or-revisite.html

The time span between 2957 BC (Flood) and 1610 BC (c. 20 years before death of Sesostris III, whom I assume to be the childkilling pharao, and before birth of Moses) can be divided into nearly equal halves around 2287 BC. 670 from Flood to that year, 677 from that year to twenty years before the birth of Moses.

The former goes from "40 000 BP" to "6000 BC" and the latter from "6000 BC" to "2000 BC". "38 000 BC" - "6000 BC" = "32 000" carbon years, and "6000 BC" - "2000 BC" = "4000" carbon years.

38	000		6000		2	000
-	2957		2287		1	610
=3	5043		3713			390

But how does this work? Am I presuming the halflife was faster before, and speed of light too? No.

I am simply assuming the original carbon 14 content of samples was 1.279 pmC in 2957, 63.387 pmC in 2287 and 95.201 pmC in 1610 BC. 670 years going from 1.279 to 63.387 pmC, a net rise of 62.108 pmC points, and 677 years to go from 63.387 to 95.201 pmC, a net rise of 31.814 pmC points.

But the 62.108 points give so many more years than the 31.814 points, not just double?

Yes, once one is up in 63.387 pmC, you cannot rise to twice that, in the rise to 100 pmC. It only gives 3713 extra years, less than a halflife.

But from 1.279 to 63.387 pmC, you do more than just one doubling - meaning the original must add more than just one halflife more than those 3713 extra years.

1.279 (1) 2.558 (2) 5.116 (3) 10.232 (4) 20.464 (5) 40.928
5 * 5730 = 28 650 - not very far from 32 000. 28 650 + 3713 = 32 363.

Meanwhile, the additions of carbon 14 into the atmosphere are faster the first half than the second half. Of the first half, I consider them faster the first 401 years than later. C. 10 to 11 times as fast. Adding carbon 14 takes cosmic rays adding radioactivity, and some gets to the lower atmosphere or ground instead of forming C14 in the very high atmosphere. This time coincides with the ice age, because lower atmosphere ionising particles cause colder climate (not saying this was the only cause) and it also coincides with human lifespans degrading. Radioactivity going down to ground hurts genomes.

Now look at this:

Over-ill rejected

Most secular scientists have rejected over-ill as implausible because there is little, if any evidence, to support it. Multiple random diseases, which are in any case most often species-specific, would have affected only local to regional populations at best. This wouldn’t explain the hemisphere-wide extinctions of some animal groups.6 Some sort of global hyper-disease affecting many different species has been proposed. However, it is difficult to imagine any disease selectively killing off large animals while sparing both man and smaller animals. The only possible modern global-disease analogue, the West Nile Virus, could not selectively target the large animals and generally provides no support for over-ill.

Over-kill, over-chill, or over-ill?
Why a mass extinction at the end of the Ice Age?
by Mike Oard | This article is from
Creation 43(1):40–43, January 2021
https://creation.com/kill-chill-ill

Would seem one of the assets with being small is, you can creep under rocks and hide from radioation a bit better. And thickskinned animals survived best. Thick skin also protects the genome.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Epiphany
6.I.20212022