112
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 129:
Line 129: + + + + + + +
no edit summary
The article used for reference 2 says that Dirac's theory still hasn't been proven and that there isn't strong enough evidence that the laws have changed. Maybe this reference and claim should be removed until a better source (if one exists) can be found. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 14:56, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
The article used for reference 2 says that Dirac's theory still hasn't been proven and that there isn't strong enough evidence that the laws have changed. Maybe this reference and claim should be removed until a better source (if one exists) can be found. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 14:56, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
:To be honest, I'm really skeptical. If Dirac were right, he'd be the winner of a second Nobel Prize. And people usually listen to Nobel Prize winners. [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 19:06, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
:To be honest, I'm really skeptical. If Dirac were right, he'd be the winner of a second Nobel Prize. And people usually listen to Nobel Prize winners. [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 19:06, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
== Carbon dating verified through other methods ==
How do you explain the fact that carbon dating methods were verified through many other methods of dating? When Libby developed the method he checked his results using verified historical records pertaining to the life of Zoser during the thrid dynasty. Carbon dating has also been proven effective through comparing results from other unrelated aging methods such as U/T dating, Optically Stimulated Luminescence (OSL), Thermoluminescence, Electron Spin Resonance, Dendrochronology, and Potassium-Argon dating. I have personally tested the age of a buried hearth pit using carbon dating and OSL, and the results were he same. [[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 16:15, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
== Headline text ==