5 ms·

Carbon Dating

• twotimesposter 13y ago
  Wrong, carbon dating has a limit of 62 millenia. Maybe you meant radiometric dating?
  • maresca 13y ago
    Of course I did.
• alan_cx 13y ago
  With out knowing, I some how got involved with carbon dating. I must have, I married a diamond..... Two reactions to that, either: ahhhhh sweeeeeeet, or I feel sick, pass me a bucket. So, up vote for sweet, or down vote for bucket. :) (Normally I like a Sunday rant. I feel different today)
  • ezequiel-garzon 13y ago
    Is this joke yours? It's great!
• courtewing 13y ago
  Carbon dating is actually only effective up to about 50,000 years, so its really only ideal for tracking human history after we started migrating out of Africa. This is because the unstable carbon-14 isotope only has a half-life of about 5700 years. There are many other forms of radiometric dating, though. Uranium-lead dating has proven relatively accurate for periods of time between 1 million to 4.5 billion years ago. Note: I'm not a geologist. I remembered that carbon was only effective for a few thousand years from a geology course I had in college, but all of this information is actually taken from articles on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating
  • mcrittenden 13y ago
    I'm curious how it could prove accurate for that time frame? How could something like that be verified or proven?
    • jmcqk6 13y ago
      Due to the way radiometric dating works, you don't need to actually verify in the way that you are using the word. However, there are at least two ways to verify the date: 1) Verify the half-life value. Radiometric dating works on the same principle: look at the ratio of pre-substance to fissioned substance. If you have a good half-life value, you can determine the age of the specimen using those values. 2) Use two different methods for getting the same age. If you use multiple, independent methods of determining the age of something, and they all come out the same, you have greatly lessened the probability that you're wrong or missed something. Of course there are ways that these can be strengthened even more using practices like double blinding the measurements.
    • evan_ 13y ago
      It's all theoretical, in the same way that our understanding of gravity or radiation itself is theoretical.
      • sillysaurus 13y ago
        By that metric, our understanding of anything is theoretical.
        • evan_ 13y ago
          Yep.
      • teeja 13y ago
        It's more like a , you might get killed by a car if you step into the street kind of theoretical. Or the drip of a water clock will fill the container in 8 hours kind of theoretical. Or a don't plant too early or your people will starve kind of theoretical. A theory in science is a model backed by the huge majority of observational evidence and the collective experience of the model's community. There are no other equivalent human institutions for reliability. None. So saying "it's just a theory" in the case of uranium-dating is a fairly unreasoned attitude.