Convergence of Uneven pmC?

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

HGL'S F.B. WRITINGS: Table I to II Perhaps Doubled Beginning (Upper / Lower Limits) ? · Creation vs. Evolution: Convergence of Uneven pmC?

My latest correction so far for the carbon date of the Flood sets it at precisely 39 000 BP.

But what if there was actually a range? If samples from then did not have all precisely 1.628 pmC, but rather* as per 1) content in volcanic gas ranging from 0.4 to 4.8 pmC in the present, and 2) this after a decay to c. 54.748 % of the original content, originally 3) an atmosphere had a content of 0.73 to 8.767 pmC? The Flood date would then not be precisely 39 000 BP, but 45 680 to 25 080 BP. This is fairly close to the CMI statement of Flood items dating between 50 000 and 20 000 BP.**

I will now assume, somewhat unrealistically, that they mingle perfectly, without similar divergence,

I - II 2957 - 2607 = 350
95.854 %, compensates normally 4.146 pmC
I - II lower		I - II higher
0.73 * 95.854 / 100 = 0.7 43.438 - 0.7 = 42.738 42.738 / 4.146 = 10.308		8.767 * 95.854 / 100 = 8.404 43.438 - 8.404 = 35.034 35.034 / 4.146 = 8.45

Perhaps it is more useful to divide the table into larger time chunks, like 50 years? 99.397 %, 0.603 pmC normal replacement, replacement here between 6.216 and 5.095 pmC points.

2957 BC

0.73 pmC, so dated 43 680 BC

8.767 pmC, so dated 23 080 BC

2907 BC

6.941 pmC, so dated 24957 BC

13.809 pmC, so dated 19257 BC

2857 BC

13.115 pmC, so dated 19 657 BC

18.822 pmC, so dated 16 657 BC

2807 BC

19.252 pmC, so dated 16 407 BC

23.803 pmC, so dated 14 657 BC

2757 BC

25.351 pmC, so dated 14 107 BC

28.755 pmC, so dated 13 057 BC

2707 BC

31.414 pmC, so dated 12 257 BC

33.677 pmC, so dated 11 707 BC

2657 BC

37.441 pmC, so dated 10 757 BC

38.569 pmC, so dated 10 557 BC

2607 BC

43.431 pmC, so dated 9507 BC

43.432 pmC, so dated 9507 BC

Now, the reason why this convergence is somewhat unrealistic is, towards the end of this time period, you have the Younger Dryas. Part of the impact would have added lots of carbon 14.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Ember Wednesday
21.II.2024

* Table I to II Perhaps Doubled Beginning (Upper / Lower Limits) ?
** See footnote 4 on their article, on this occasion the one of Joel Tay responding to Phil K., Triceratops soft tissue