SciManDan on a Flat Earther (where I agree on SciMan) and on Carbon Dating (where I agree with neither)

First a video I did not watch in its entirety (or even at all, except the excerpts in next):

Flat Earth Canada conference opening speech Mark Sargent - DITRH mirror
markksargent | 14.VIII.2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AB5Fhp6NWV4

Then SciManDan comments, before I comment on him:

Flat Earth "Leader" Gets His Best 5 Points Ruined!!
SciManDan | 14.IX.2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89RvUQjjTFE

I

8:55 - 9:04 "and no, an enclosed pressurised system is not more logical, because you have to explain who built that system, then we move into some very dodgy territory."

While I am not a Flat Earther, very far from, I object to this remark very strongly.

While theology is a very controverse ridden ground, this does not make theology illogical, nor a theological explanation of physical observations an illogical observation.

II

13:38 as to your comparison:

5 milliSieverts during the trip
3 milliSieverts during a year (on earth)

How long was the trip?

"the crew returned safely to Earth on April 17, 1970, six days after launch."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_13

Let's pretend this is all six days in Van Allen Belt, let's also round off 365 to 366 days.

366 : 6 = 61.

So, 5 milliSieverts during 6 days = 61 * 5 milliSieverts during a year, not in total sum of radiation, but in intensity while it lasts.

305 milliSieverts a year(*) is fairly high.

It is in fact much higher than what my scheme in rapid rise of C14 content of atmosphere, context of Young Earth Creationism (**), always supposing that radiation and rate of production of C14 have a roughly linear (***) relationship.

Notes to II

(*) 366 - 61 = 305
(**) YEC statement : object so and so has a carbon date "before creation" bc C14 was lower than now => corrollary, C14 rose rapidly, with a higher rate of C14 production than now. How much higher depends on how long the Biblical timescale is, but in my version, 11 - 12 times higher during Babel event / Göbekli Tepe is fair enough.
(***) I specifically asked for a similation in the best possible or at least most modern version in which different incoming radiation rates are modelised for outcome in radiation at earth (equator, poles), for production of C14 and Beryllium and so on, and Ilya Usoskin refused to do such a modelling. See here:

Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : Other Check on Carbon Buildup
https://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2017/11/other-check-on-carbon-buildup.html

III

16:03 Your best moment in all of the video was the part where you spoke of curvature.

I have already pointed out to Rob Skiba II that he would not sight Chicago from other side of lake Michigan if he insisted on holding camera at his feet just in the water edge. How long a view one can have depends on how high you are up - in relation to highest intervening plane or object.

They tend to miss that one quite often.

Your second best, when you told of who got cancer in Apollo team.

Your worst moments are when you consider:

• a) God building a system "illogical" and
• b) someone's lack of science background a reason to presume quasi automatically that someone with higher science background has to know better than he.

Sure, some things you do tackle better, but your clearly atheistic moment at 8:55 - 9:04 takes your credibility down quite a huge notch.

Same procedure. First a video I did not watch in its entirety (or even at all, except the excerpts in next):

Carbon Dating is a Hoax
Conspiracies by Hans 4 | 29.VIII.2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G829KKitEME

Then SciManDan comments, before I comment on him:

Carbon Dating Isn't a Thing for This Conspiracy Nut!!
SciManDan | 23.X.2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HJYi8d9NCw

I

3:26 Appealing to the science of the computer and of his medical practitioner is actually irrelevant.

Neither of them is based on carbon dating or on the exact scientific concepts involved in carbon dating. OK, most of them, sometimes a contrast liquid might contain C14 to be traceable.

By the way, one of the best drugs against infection is penicilline (except in hospital environment where there are plenty of strains of penicilline resistent bacteria).

And penicilline is extracted by scientists, but it is produced by mold fungi.

Not sure if it is also available in synthesised version (there are other antibiotics that are synthetic), but mold fungi naturally produce penicilline.

I am a huge fan of blue cheese.

II

4:24 And before you go on, I can corroborate most of it for you.

Except the "see how much has decayed part" in prehistoric or proto-historic (Bronze age of earlier) settings where no reliable historic calibration exists.

• 1) Carbon 14 can be reliably measured by measuring radioactive radiation from carbon.
• 2) It can be reliably measured as forming one in a - whatever the high measure, way beyond a million anyway, because Carbon 12 can also be reliably measured as not emitting radiation.
• 3) You can even reliably measure a half life, indirectly - namely by calibrated carbon dates checked against what history tells you of the age of objects (and this means you can then go on and find objects of same age, by checking they have same carbon 14 content).

An object that is 100 of years old will have a pmC which is 50% to the exponent that 100 years is of the halflife.

100/5730 = 0.01745200698080279232111692844677

0.5^{0.01745200698080279232111692844677} = 0.9879760628287867902830304684176

So an object 100 years old will have a pmC of 98.7976 percent modern Carbon 14.

200/5730 = 0.03490401396160558464223385689354

0.5^{0.03490401396160558464223385689354} = 0.97609670072267086328978415897413

An object that is 200 years old will have a pmC of 97.60967 pmC.

And so on, which is a check both on the half life and on the carbon 14 content being 100 pmC from back when the organic object is from.

Now, how do you know that we don't have for instance a longer halflife but a rising carbon 14 content for these 200 years?

Well, that would give different dates showing different halflives.

I did the maths behind that one.

So, how do we know we are not having a higher carbon 14 content now than back in the time of Göbekli Tepe?

I am presuming your side has no calendar and narrative based calibrated date for GT.

What you do have is a tree ring based calibration, and I frankly find tree ring datings that old too badly proven.

This brings us to, how fast could C14 have risen?

I'd say the Flood was in real year 2957 BC (based on the Biblical chronology as endorsed in Roman martyrology, a longer one than Ussher, LXX based) and we get carbon levels for 40 000 BP from then.

On the other hand, Troy VIIa corresponds to the historic date for Troy's fall, 1179 BC.

So, Carbon 14 levels rose from 1.5 pmC to 100 pmC between 2957 and 1179 BC.

In 1778 years.

Prove this impossible, if you can (and skip tree ring calibration - or go into depth on it).

III

6:15 I'd have to back up Hans4's scepticism of Nobel prize per se.

In 1906, the Nobel prize for literature went to Carducci, Inno a Satana.

Yes, it means Hymn to Satan.

Not the last time Nobel committee has done a somewhat seedy choice.

As to Libby, he had got the halflife somewhat wrong, the halflife I use is the Cambridge halflife, which is on my view very securely calibrated on modern historical organic material as being what backs that halflife up.

IV

8:20 We know for a fact that squirrels and men do not uptake carbon via breathing, but via eating.

This means, if they are eating plants that grew recently, their carbon uptake is likely to reflect that.

There is some delay in uptake, since human tissues do not all exchange into replacing atoms from outside at the same speed.

In trees, there is the fact that only outermost rings (one light, one dark) is taking up carbon from this years atmosphere, the two rings inside that have carbon from last year, the two inside those have carbon from the year before that and so on.

Btw, this is an aspect I have not taken into account in my tables of carbon 14 increase. I have treated charcoal, basically wood, as if it were hay and included the carbon 14 uptake of one single year. Which is of course wrong, a tree that has grown for 40 years on its level you cut it at has a carbon age of an average of 20 years, and a tree which has grown for 100 years where you cut it has a carbon level average of 50 years.

By contrast, human tissue seems to be on average exchanged every 7 years. Probably some kind of difference between bone and some other stuff. The discrepancy in Mungo Man indicates that such a delay or difference could then amount to some millennia (c. 2000 years) between tissues, meaning the carbon 14 content was growing drastically back then.

"almost the same"

As long as food taken from down in the sea is not involved.

You know the Vikings who were carbon dated to Anglo-Saxons, despite history saying Vikings?

They ate lots of fish.

You know the men in Spanish or Portuguese coastal areas who had syphilis in pre-Columbian times "so syphilis didn't come from Azteks"? Well, they ate lots of shellfish.

It's called the reservoir effect.

V

9:12 - I already answered his question for him.

An object which is 100 years old should have a pmC which is 50 % to the power of 100/5730.

An object which is 350 years old should have a pmC which is 50 % to the power of 350/5730.

This is in fact the reason we have 5730, since that is the Cambridge half life, corrected from the initial somewhat lower assumptions by Libby.

350/5730 = 0.0610820244328097731239092495637

0.5^{0.0610820244328097731239092495637} = 0.95854493886704444226341829511985

So, an object which is 350 years old should have a pmC of 95.854 pmC.

9:59 Isn't the relatively short time and extrapolation from that exactly how Libby got his half life - which was wrong by more than a century?

Here is a comparison of Cambridge halflife with Libby halflife:

5730 +/- 30
5568 +/- 30
=162

Libby was 162 years off. 2.8 % off.

VI

10:46 When it comes to that longer halflife, it is impossible to correct it like the Cambridge version of C14's half life.

Your method is one which for C14 was 2.8 % wrong, a very much slower process would be very much less precise in watching, so it could be wrong even more.

What's more, the most common one is Ka-Ar.

With Ka-Ar we have a very long half life, but was also have a snag : what if some of the measured Argon is actually not from decaying Potassium, but from Argon from the atmosphere?

11:15 I really don't see how the polymerisation of plastic - a process we can control in real time - can help you accurately determine in a Cambridge half life way the half life of Ka-Ar process or how much if any Argon got trapped while the lava cooled.

VII

11:50 If your backyard is on Jurassic coast in England, or in the Karoo area, you do in fact have great chances of digging up a fossil.

Or at least greater than otherwise.

Same if your back yard is in Hell Creek formation.

And most backyards with some chalk (was that the wrong stone?) might give you some chance of digging up a trilobite.

VIII

12:33 I'd cut the pear in half or the hair into four, whichever one you prefer on this one.

We have fairly good empiric evidence water involves bodies consisting of one bigger and two smaller balls.

We would have similarily good empiric evidence of alcohol involving bodies consisting of two big balls, surrounded by five small balls and a sixths even bigger ball with a small ball attached to it. Just, electronic microscopy images are more easy to find on the internet for water molecules than for molecules of ethyl-alcohol. Maybe some Muslim conspiracy in the science world, alcohol being Haram to them and all that ...

On the other hand, we do not know the internal structure of the atom by such a near direct way, and we do also not know whether the space observed between two water molecules is empty space or belongs to the water.

IX

14:05 Hans is in the German and Scandinavian world about as common as John (in fact it is John : Iohannes is nominative and Iohannem is accusative of same Latin version of Yohanan, and Iohannes > Hannes > Hans is as good an etymology as Iohannem > Iohann > Jo(h)n).

Just to make it clear I am not the same person, and I do not share his interest in outing trannies among the élite, people who on his view are opposite sex from what they are publically known as.

He probably has very feminine looking ladies and very masculine looking gentlemen in his family and surroundings and any even slightly androgynic appearance signals "tranny" to him ....

X

14:31 When it comes to carbon dating, and if someone shouting tranny to anyone who looks slightly androgynic to them ticks you off, why did you pick him and not me?

Because he has a youtube and I got a blog?