Your error is one of your last statements: Current won’t flow until you establish an EM field through the entire circuit. That’s incorrect. It’s the flow of current that establishes that EM field.

🔥

I've watched 3 or 4 videos on this topic trying to understand this calculation. Your video clicked for me. Best one I've seen so far.

The only problem I have with this, is that Carbon dating initially depended on at least 2 things. 1) that the rate of decay is constant 2) that the ratio of atmospheric carbon 14 was also constant. Neither of these two things are now true and nor have they been true. The work on Nutrinos speeding the decay rates of radio isotopes is the current thing underway that completly undermines almost all radiometric dating techniques. The rush to "patch up" 14C dating caused a ruckus when they decided to just invent a curve that would preserve the dates already gathered as if the variant nature of the mess was only so as of the time of the finding of the non constancy of atmospheric carbon 14. Setterfield & Norman were working on a new theory of lightspeed when they diagnosed a problem in measurements not adding up that resulted in a finding that their cesium clock was malfunctioning. At the same time testing for radiation levels at chernobyl were happening to check for the current status to tell whether they were on schedule for a later ability to reinhabit the region. To their shock, the levels they were recording showed the area safe well ahead of time. Cesium was decaying at an accelerated rate in both instances. Thie common factor in both cases was solar flare activity. From there the sciences narrowed the culprit down to Nutrino activity associated with the flares.. That is where the science currently is. Nutrinos speed up decay rates in association with solar flare activity. As solar flares are a pretty common thing, this renders the assumption that decay rates are constant to false. That nullifies Carbon14 altogether, patchup ciurve or no. And the last man standing would be Uranium 238 as it produces a beta decay helium that is trapped in a known way with a known rate of release regardless of how much is generated. That known rate can be used to date things. The problem is, it always shows young ages which is why it's always thrown out, footnoted, tossed in the bibliography or otherwise hidden from the general public and the 'expert' reader alike. What this means, is that the data you've been handed and stories told based on these techniques, are all wrong. The deep time folks are interested in patching up the collected dates to make them seem viable though they can't be knowing what we know. Others want a process with integrity that can be relied upon for accuracy. So the argument in the sciences right now centers on the accurate crowd vs the preserve my story crowd. The preserve my story crowd tend to have political backing. The rest are the guys that want credible accurate science. So we're down to you can have one or the other; but, not both. Science has lost credibility with the public over issues like Global warming, evolution, the Pharma uproar, covid...too many lies and too much reliance on credentials for pitching those lies. So between the warring parties in the sciences, the winner won't be from the sciences. I predict the public is going to be the party that wins that war. Evolution is already slated for replacement in the sciences because of the public's anger over all the fraud and misrepresentations of fact that have surfaced over several decades of public debate and highlighted more clearly in the Evolution vs ID debates. Evolution lost the fight. And in the aftermath, official word from the sciences was announced that it's thusly being replaced. I think that's hedging, personally; but, I don't think they have any choice in the matter either. Cheer up, though, it's going to get worse.

It never did work to begin with

So I’m a bit slow , Would not the disappearance behind Jupiter also be delayed during which io moves further along the far side of Jupiter causing it to be further along the path to reappearing Surely these two values would cancel each other out Im obviously missing something since the math don’t lie

It never worked to begin with.

It never worked from the beginning…but the funny high year numbers fit so perfectly with the evolution narrative…

Excellent. Fun yet not frivolous, beautifully crafted, and with the soothing KZbin narrator's voice that is so essential; you have a talent for this! Now do epsilon-nought and mu-nought (permittivity and permeability of free space).

Carbon dating has been debunked

But rocks?

Try krypton. Everyone is putting a LOT of stock into carbon dating which seems to have a ton of cofounders…

How was the experience? Thinking of taking my 5 year old to an upcoming launch. What is it like in person? Thanks!

Palm Springs, CA ? Tehachiipi Mountains and the wind turbines ?? Why did you choose the name TYCHO ??

It was never reliable to begin with… for many reasons

it doesnt work even now lmao. it is used for lying about history and prehistory so it fits the mainstream narrative.

isn't this proof of the One-way speed of light?

What you overlook here is that there have always been variations to the 14C/12C ratio, and consquently radiocarbon dates have to be calibrated, usually by reference to tree rings. The tree rings preserve a record of those isotopic variations, including the recent ones caused by A-bomb testing and fossil carbon pollution. The rapid changes since the industrial revolution do cause problems, in that there are multiple intersections with the calibration curve that cause greater error ranges. But future archaeologists, as long as they have a calibration curve, will have NO problem using radiocarbon to date the 20th and 21st centuries. In fact, that bomb signature will become a major marker that actually makes it EASIER to identify the mid-20th century.

So who was the observer that proves the isotopes decay over 5,000 years. Who created this project at that time. Is this really built on accusations and theories? These are reasons why I never believed in carbon dating. No proof, all theoretical!

Hi Tycho. This is a nice video. I tried to replicate it and found that the largest uncertainty is by far the period of Io. Any error you make here will be multiplied by the number of periods in 6.5 Months, which is about 110. So an error of 1s (that would be quite a small error) on the period gets you almost 2 minutes off on your final result. Given how tricky it is to define the "disappearance" of Io behind Jupiter, I don't see any easy way out of this. Maybe you will! Even the periods we can find online, or the orbital distance (which gets us the period through Kepler's third law) are not precise enough to make this work. This is probably why Roemer based his calculations on years of data, rather than 4 disappearances.

So what you are saying it’s not reliable at all even before the 20th century. Because we have not so little things like volcanoes that do the same effect through out the centuries.

I really wanted a movie of what Io coming in and out of view would look like and you've done it! Brilliant, thanks.

Atmospheric CO2 levels have varied widely over long periods of time reaching over 2000 ppm. Therefore today’s problem has been present over and over again in the past. Carbon dating was a wonderful discovery and one that has severe limitations especially when tested against known age samples.

Thanks for this video. I've always wanted to add a second battery to my HyperScorpion, but they always seem to be mounted on the back rack which i use for a cargo basket. It seems like a second battery is always a trade-off between range and storage. Too bad we can't have both somehow.

C-14 is found in oil, coal, and fossil deposts all around the world. It is more than just contamination from extraction. Your hypothesis is flawed.

It is for related reasons that carbon 14 dating doesn't work for ages before the flood of Noah.

I feel like this video is just saying "Carbon dating just got a lot more complicated" and not even that's impossible, just that it might be different and more complicated. And then this leaves the comment section open to go "The entire field of radioactive dating is incorrect and always has been, the entire field of fossil research is based on fraud." I think it's important to tell your audience that the body of science accounts for stuff like this before we even take notice and they're already using so many other dating methods to verify ages of ancient things. We're only in a position here to talk about carbon, and this shouldn't bring doubt to all of our other dating methods. I mean, if we know carbon dating doesn't work then it won't be done, and we'll be left with this other mountain of evidence from other tests and procedures.

Carbon-14 dating is limited to roughly 60,000 years old. It is not used to date things much older than that. So, for instance, dinosour fossils, which can be 60 million years old cannot be dated by Carbon-14. There are a variety of dating techniques including radiometric dating, examining volcanic ash, examing rock layers, electron spin resonance, etc. The more of these techniques that supply a date, the greater the accuracy of the dating. There are many people that spend their whole career studying these techniques, and questiong them, so one can rely on their accuracy. However, the overall point of this article is true, that nuclear tests and burning of fossil fuels will affect the accuracy of future Carbon-14 testing. This is well known in the scientific community.

This is incorrect knowledge, and should be retracted. There can be no delay in anything observed, because Roemer was using a telescope.

No way a fossil a farmer tripped on is quarter billion years old. These are more like bold guesses not facts....I think I hear something approaching.....

Here's what you did wrong. You assumed (perhaps as Roemer himself did as well) that the apparent orbital period variation for Io was caused by Earth's changing *position* in the solar system. In fact it caused by Earth's changing *velocity*. If you think about it, when Earth is closest to Jupiter, the light travel time is less for both the first and second occultation. When Earth is farthest, there will be delays in when both occultations occur. However when Earth is *MOVING TOWARD* Jupiter fastest, then the *period* of Io will be less, because the light from the second occultation will take less time to arrive, and vice versa for moving away. For this reason, Roemer also deserves credit for the first astronomical observation of the Doppler effect (consider Io to have a frequency) Don't feel bad. This is quite subtle and is wrongly reported in most astronomy textbooks!!

Its useless before the 20th century as well. So it's completely useless.

Carbon dating has never been reliable, but is used to uphold biases.

I'll help you out, it does not work and never will because it never did, as it is pure imagination.

Sorry, but the conclusion here is just wrong, even if the underlying discussion is correct. 1) We use radiocarbon dating frequently to date objects from the 20th century, specifically because we can use the 'bomb spike' signature to narrow materials down to a few years; 2) the 14C/12C ratio is constantly in flux, for natural and now anthropogenic reasons, but that doesn't preclude us from applying radiocarbon dating to the past, so long as the 14C/12C ratio can be independently constrained (it can); 3) in case you didn't notice, you are inadvertently adding fuel to the hopes of creationists who think we can't use the method beyond a few thousand years. For any YEC's in the comments, don't get your hopes up. We can use radiocarbon dating well back to ~50,000 years and verify the ages independently (i.e. test all the assumptions you think we make blindly).

Don't get the atmospheric carbon angle when we use carbon dating for the bones of dinosaurs who lived during a time when the earth's atmospheric levels of carbon were 4-6x what we have today.

Very cool. Thanks, Tycho!

Anymore??? Carbon dating NEVER worked!

So past age of the oldest tree, there’s no real way of calibrating it

I don't care, but i really enjoy the energy density of natural gas and oil... It has no negative consequences of interest to humans, unless you buy into propaganda and lies

Carbon dating is too chaotic and requires some faith and preexisting knowledge of the object to believe the results.

Is he saying, that elemental Nitrogen is floating around in the stratosphere or something? Then it becomes elemental Carbon 14? There's elemental Carbon 14 floating around up there? And then how does it become Carbon 14 Dioxide so that it can be absorbed by plants?

I'm not entirely sure if this comment will be read by Tycho but I was wondering how your UPP battery is holding up, hopefully no bulges or a fire at all! I hope you can message this comment soon, I'm very curious.

1:35 - This makes no sense. How does it go up the periodic table by one with only losing an electron. The only way to go up the periodic table is to gain a proton. If you want to change an isotope you need to mess with the neutrons.

Forgive me if my question is elementary as this is not my field, but I'm still interested. My question, Does rain/snow etc clean this carbon from atmosphere, and if so couldn't it be introduced or absorbed by artifact organic materials in situ via water?

Wait. You proposed that we cannot use it anymore but have scientist actually verified that this ratio has become obsolete? Our core samples show that carbon has fluctuated in the atmosphere as temperature all the time, and we have had peruods in the past when c12 has been as high or higher than today (note that the sea is an immense sink and source of carbon in the atmosphere, and the sahara was once a lush foreest). The claim yoy make at the end means carbon dating is not an accurate test at all.

I changed the brakes but they’re even worse now and louder

So also, if there was a period in the relatively recent past, when cosmic rays did not reach the earth at the rate that today is considered normal and constant, then less C14 would have been formed during that period and correspondingly there would be less C14 present in fossils and consequently the fossils from that period would seem to be older than they really are.

Beautiful! Thank you for posting this.

Back in 1913? shiiiiiit Back in last Wednesday, nephew