Difference between radiocarbon dating dendrochronology
As a result I was using some of my texts to examine the decay of Americium 241 and noted the naturally occurring decay chains for U235, U238 and Th232, as well as the fully decayed chain for Pu241.
My thought is, can the relative natural abundances of these chains' terminal products (Pb208,207, and 206) be used to calculate an initial abundance and time frame for the original atomic abundances of the parent isotopes which could be compared to the predictions of Willie Fowler regarding stellar nucleogenesis processes. Thanks again for all your interesting and informative web postings and work.
Unfortunately, I can’t find the article (“Correlation of C-14 age with real time”) online. He cites the correct (Cambridge) half-life of C14 but then for his musk ox calculation seems to work straight from Libby half-life C14 dates.
If anyone could direct me to it I’d be very grateful... Also, here is the article “Correlation of C-14 age with real time”, page 45 of this quarterly. Possibly he doesn't know there's a difference?
Link between radiometric dating and lightspeed Oklo What about the RATE group?
And he doesn't mention calibration at all, anywhere - probably for obvious reasons. Is one of them C14, another tree dating, and a third historical writing? So you need to look at the right-most part of the graph, section C. The green line is irrelevant because it is an alternative source which only applies to the Old Kingdom.
And despite the ad hoc nature of this kind of thing, as mentioned in my OP, he still has a fifty year discrepancy at 1000 BCE, which is worsened if, as I suspect, he's not taking into account the different half-life with which C14 dates are conventionally reported. I should probably have clarified this in my OP, sorry. Shaw and Hornung are historical chronologies of ancient Egypt.
Professor Fowler did exactly this and has maintained his calculated radiometric age for the universe at about 10 billion years, with which I am basically in agreement.
Interestingly, using these sorts of ratios, one piece of moon rock dated as being 8.2 billion years old, to the amazement of the dating laboratory involved.