I realized I have done so many calculations and bs on radiocarbon dating in school but never knew how it was actually measured hahaha

It makes you wonder why that is. I experienced the same problem.

I am sure it would be "simple" to her since she has probably been involved with Radiocarbon Dating so much.

Thanks!

Indeed

No kidding lol jeez

It's fake. It doesn't work. I've been challenging them for years and they ALWAYS back out. Collect new rocks from Mt Saint Helen which is no more than 40 years old and mix it up with rocks that are supposedly much older and these testings won't be able to tell apart which one is the young one. If they say it don't work with rocks, then give them a bone belonging to a roasted pig and tell them to test it in front of you, and I guarantee the pig bone result will be 30,000 years old 😂

Those machines are fascinating. Imagine how long it took to discover those through trial and error.

hindi rin pwede and carbon dating sa bagong decayed materials. .100-50,000 yrs old kc ang effective dating range ng carbon 14 dating. .

A Forensic Anthropologist prefers Skeletonized Remains where a Forensic Medical Examiner prefers the Flesh). The Forensic Anthropologist will finish Skeletonizing the Remains if and when he/she Receives Remains only Partially Skeletonized. FWIW, I am a Retired Mortician.

$15,000 and no refund if they get the age results wrong, you have to sign a paper that says you won't get your money back if they incorrectly got the age results wrong. Give them a bone belonging to a 10yo roasted pig and tell them to do the testing in front of you, not behind closed doors, and the test result of the bone will be 30,000 years old 😂

Hi there, Here is where you can find information about getting a sample measured: www.gns.cri.nz/Home/Services/Laboratories-Facilities/Rafter-Radiocarbon-Laboratory Cheers

Calibration curves give the relationship between the radiocarbon content in a sample (radiocarbon age) and the calendar age of the sample. The calibration curve is constructed by measuring the radiocarbon content of materials for which the age is known independently. Tree rings are the most commonly used, since the tree rings can be counted to determine the calendar age, and then measured to determine the radiocarbon age. We use the internationally agreed upon calibration curves, which are currently IntCal13 (northern hemisphere), SHCal13 (southern hemisphere) and Marine13 (marine samples). Note that they are due to be updated and revised this year (2019) or next. The calibration curves can be obtained from: calib.org/ This website also allows you to calibrate any radiocarbon age yourself, online.

@@GNSscience How do you date things older than trees? Isn't the oldest tree like 3k years old?

@@andrewthomas4636 The dendrochronological curves cover much longer time span as the curves from specific trees can overlap - so the curve (for specific tree species and usually also for specific region) is built from many overlapping sub-curves from individual trees. This way, you can go as much to the past as you get the right trees (subfossil trees from sediments, trees used in constructions and so on).

@@janhorak8024 ok, but how do we get 100k years or more of we use a comparison of trees to get recent dates?

Stop asking questions, just obey and trust "the experts" they're smarter than you, they have millions of dollars and PhD, you don't, so stop asking questions and learn to walk on faith, not by sight, obey, believe, trust the science, trust the experts.

@@BOREDANDWELLBORED If you are serious, there's no hope for you. I this is sarcasm which I'm hoping it is, great comment👍

They make assumptions. They carbon dated a rock that formed in the 1980 Mt. St Helens eruption. Carbon dating found it to be millions of years old. It was a known age of 30 years old.. flawed. There is an error of 96% on average with the assumptions used to calculate the volume of Carbon-14 in the specimen. They compare current levels of c-14 in the atmosphere to the amount of c-14 present in the specimen.. It is bad science to assume atmospheric c-14 concentrations has been constant for 4.8 billion years.. It has been hypothesized that earth's carbon-14 absorption and decay rate in the atmosphere has yet to reach equilibrium. The assumptions used are based on incorrect or flawed data sets.

Ah a bible believer wants to disprove scientists

@@KevinChantal No a bible believing messianic christian scientist who wants to disprove some parts of science ...and in particlular only the false parts !

@@KevinChantal a Transgender wants to Disprove Real Science,

1:46 While the equation can be simplified, the full version involves taking into account an original 100 pmC as starting point. 25 pmC only corresponds to "decay by two halflives" (0.5 * 0.5 = 0.25) if original ratio was 100 pmC.

@Zaruho Well yeah, because the transfer from Krumbo to Fleeb is what produces the Snorgons. Without Snorgons, it’s just a waste of dinglebop and schleem. I hope this helps!

While you are correct that ¹³ ratio fluctuated, the variation is not that huge and, as you correctly pointed out, can be corrected by tables, mainly from dendrochronology. Which makes it accurate to a few percent down to about 40.000BC.

@@ThomasKundera You are over optimistic about dendrochronology. Much of the dendro is circular, the pieces of wood selected for comparison were so selected due to similar carbon dates (for instance) and they are so much fewer and so less big that the connexions get less and less certitude. It's a bit like the other lignine based chronology, books (papyrus and paper are lignine) ... you can get vastly more detail and more certainty for 19th C AD US than for 19th C BC Egypt. So also with dendro. Therefore, my comment still stands.

You're thinking too much. Just trust the experts and stop asking questions. Believe what your told.

There's a few ways but the easiest to explain is they simply use isotopes with a longer half-life. Some but not all include Uranium-235, Uranium-238, Potassium-40. Because fossils are found in sedimentary rocks and the organic material has been replaced by minerals, fossils themselves are rock. The isotopes I listed earlier are not present in these rocks. They are however found in Igneous rocks. So what you can do is bracket the sedimentary layers. Essentially date the igneous rocks that are found below the sedimentary layer and date those that are on top of the sedimentary layer. In a hypothetical scenario, if you date the bottom igneous rock and find it to be 70 million years old, then date the top and it's 65 million years old, then you know that the sedimentary layer is from the Cretaceous Period and any dinosaur fossil or any fossil for that matter in the sedimentary layer is from the Cretaceous. You can also use relative dating, for instance T-Rex fossils have only ever been found in Cretaceous rock, so if you were to stumble upon a T-Rex fossil, you know right off the bat that you're looking at Cretaceous Rock.

@@marcosolo6491 But they were dating dinos with radio carbon before either of those methods . . . So, how?

@@marcosolo6491 carbon dating was developed in 1905 and is the first form of radiometric dating. The other forms came later.

First half life when 50% of all C14 decayed to N14... second half life when half the remaining 50% of C14 has decayed.... an so on

Is the amount of time taken of the activity of the radioactivite substance reduces to half

Im seeing some comments with regard to perceived mistakes in her process. Maybe that's why?

Did you catch that she said they can only date up to 50k years with assumption of half life of carbon? 2:40

@@andrewthomas4636 My point here is that C14 is regularly found in these supposedly prehistoric samples. The problem with the dating method is that conditions for preservation are highly variable in the real world and not usually known. For instance, a textile is a man made object that is stored under generally known conditions. On the other hand, measurable amounts of C14 can be found in samples of coal and fossils. Coal can also be manufactured in weeks and measured to be thousands of years old. I am not saying theory is wrong, just limited in it's application

@@noobsaibot5285 Agreed, not a good long term dating method. Maybe even less than 2k years