Difference between revisions of "Talk:Radiocarbon dating"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | I made a few corrections of wild inaccuracies. For instance, half-life is basically a physical constant, not a guess. Nuclear decay is real, not some geologists fantasy. If nuclear decay is real, and our machines that measure these things are not imaginary, then radiocarbon dating is true, at least as a technique. It is not equally accurate in all times. | + | I made a few corrections of wild inaccuracies. For instance, half-life is basically a physical constant, not a guess. Nuclear decay is real, not some geologists fantasy. If nuclear decay is real, and our machines that measure these things are not imaginary, then radiocarbon dating is true, at least as a technique. It is not equally accurate in all times. PalMD |
Seems fair. [[User:Muchodelcrazy|Muchodelcrazy]] 20:19, 2 April 2007 (EDT) | Seems fair. [[User:Muchodelcrazy|Muchodelcrazy]] 20:19, 2 April 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | Excellent corretions, Mathematica.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]]<sup>[[User_talk:palmd001|talk]]</sup> 09:45, 8 April 2007 (EDT) | ||
Latest revision as of 13:45, April 8, 2007
I made a few corrections of wild inaccuracies. For instance, half-life is basically a physical constant, not a guess. Nuclear decay is real, not some geologists fantasy. If nuclear decay is real, and our machines that measure these things are not imaginary, then radiocarbon dating is true, at least as a technique. It is not equally accurate in all times. PalMD
Seems fair. Muchodelcrazy 20:19, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
Excellent corretions, Mathematica.--PalMDtalk 09:45, 8 April 2007 (EDT)