So, What Are the Possible Solutions?

Creation vs. Evolution Am I Wrong in Assuming a Stable C14 Level for Last Millennia? · So, What Are the Possible Solutions? · New blog on the kid : Assume Twice the Halflife ... · So, Doubling the Halflife and Assuming a Rising C14 Level Doesn't Fix It ...

In 1850 and also 1860, the carbon 14 level was a bit lower than 100 pmC, say 99.819 pmC, fifteen extra years. In 1950, it was down to 97.61, 200 extra years. But if we went by C12 presence in atmosphere as CO2, this dilution would by going from 285 to 320 ppm between 1860 and 1960 rather have predicted sth like 960 extra years, or a carbon 14 level in 1950 of 89 sth pmC. How do we solve this discrepancy? Here are "my five cents":

• 1) discording measure equipment, so that the 285 ppm are really to low a value?
• 2) total volume of the atmosphere decreased?
• 3) much of the added carbon is fresh carbon (with nearer 100 pmC) recycled quicker through more animals and people and fireplaces, only a smaller portion was fossil?
• 4) an upsurge of C14 production coinciding with the CO2 emissions to counterbalance it partly?
• 5) carbon 14 is still on the rise?

Here is a short assessment of each:

1) Is not very likely. 1860 is after all the century after Lavoisier.

2) As CO2 and O2 are "communicating vessels" there could be something to this, but the O2 quantity being so much greater, this would not really decrease sufficiently to account for half of the rise 285 to 320 ppm.

3) Possible. The uncanny thing is, this could be abused to further an anti-life agenda in the name of the environment.

4) Big news for me. This would mean, the present 0.34 milliSievert per year from the cosmos is in fact not necessary for the normal, but resulting in a higher than normal production of C14.

5) Interesting. If carbon 14 is still on the rise, this and the historically calibrated dates will give the impression that the halflife is shorter than it is.

I have modelled a rise from 3 pmC at the Flood (2957 BC), but with only present C14 production rate all through. By now we would be at 45 pmC, which would be taken as 100 pmC. And the rise would be so steep that with 5730 years half life, a leather boot from El Alamein would carbon date to the year of Gettysburg battle, and that one to something like Thirty Years War ... in order to get a real view of history, one would have to assume a halflife of c. 2300 - 2800 years, longer the further you go back, not 5730.

New blog on the kid : Examinons une hypothèse qui se trouve contrefactuelle un peu de près
https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2015/10/examinons-une-hypothese-qui-se-trouve.html

This means that, as with the assumption of a steady level, the 5730 years seem to work, if the level is rising, the real halflife must be longer.

And this means, the original levels of the samples must be lower. And this means, the overall rise would have required a less radical temporary rise in C14 production.

Now, if 5) were correct, my pmC levels in New Tables would be wrong, but would this mean the tables were wrong as a calibration?

Check out this little argument:

Marco Polo brought these latter ones from China. In his day magnetite was explained as:

• element earth
• under influence of Mars to make it iron
• and then under influence of Venus to make it attract.

Magnets worked even so, and as said, it was in China they were first used for compasses.

From this one here:

Recipes from Home and Abroad : How to Tunnel Through a Mountain with Pre-Modern Equipment
https://recipesfromhomeandabroad.blogspot.com/2022/01/how-to-tunnel-through-mountain-with-pre.html

In other words, a wrong explanation of what is really going on will not make the use of a thing automatically wrong. Physicians took the pulse and made correct diagnoses based on it when Harvey had not yet discovered pulse was blood running through blood vessels. Conversely, an observedly correct use will not guarantee the correctness of the underlying theory : space travel does not prove heliocentrism.

In cases 1 to 4, my assumptions about carbon 14 levels could still be correct, but in case 5 they wouldn't - but this does not mean it would make the tables flawed.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Polycarp of Smyrna
26.I.2022