Determining the Age of a Fossil Using Carbon-14

[@JilaniAhmed]

We can use this easy calculation - Solution: ------------- When find the age of organic organism we need to consider the half-life of carbon 14 as well as the rate of decay which is -0.693. Here, t = t is fossil age t 1/2 = half-life of the isotope carbon 14 ln() is the natural logarithm function. We can use the formula for carbon 14 t = { ln( 60/100 ) / ( -0.693 ) } * 5600 t = 0.737 * 5600 So t = 4127 years So the fossil is 4127 years old, meaning the living organism died in 4127 years ago.

[@jongg4982]

Whoever came out with this formula is bsing 😆😆

[@sunethrarajapaksha4302]

We can do also like this. 0.6N=Ne*minus lambda times t ln 0.6=ln e*minus lambda times t ln 0.6=minus lambda times t t=ln 0.6/minus lambda Lambda=0.693/5600 =0.00012375 t=4127 years

[@rosemary-sr8kb]

Love you!

[@TOP-3-BY-TANMAY__SK__]

Love you 2 💖

[@AsratMengesha]

What about dead animals bodies decaying speed?is it exponential or linear?

[@jojothedawg4812]

How do we know the half-life is 5,700 years? I understand that C-14 decays at measurable rate but how do we know how many isotopes were originally in an element at it's beginning? If nobody was there to take a measurement when the dinosaur died, where does the amount of C-14 come from?

[@jamescassaniti9694]

Exactly

[@milenkovacevickelvinmedrano]

Because when sciencetists do not know something and can not acquire the knowledge, they _assume_ and proclaim their fantasies to be "facts". Like how dinosaurs used to sound like...I mean, how can you determine anything from a fossile except the shape and size of the animal and potentially it's diet...

[@kennethfrias8895]

An organism absorbs about the same ratio of C-12 and C-14 while living. Once it dies, the amount of isotope C-14 starts to decrease (it undergoes negative beta decay and becomes nitrogen) while the amount of C-12 remains relatively constant (since C-12 is stable). Thus, the basis of the remaining amount of C-14 is COMPARED with the amount of C-12 in that fossil. In the video, it generally means that the fossil has 60% remaining C-14 isotope (since 40% had already decayed when the organism died), as compared to the amount of C-12 which is still 100%.

[@bec6153]

Can someone explain in English pls

[@chloehahn8372]

very helpful

[@mesatreecare]

initial C14 is never known and must always be assumed. thus I think C14 dating is a complete waste of time. one love.

[@adon2424]

Adam , yes right at the start, she makes an assumption of how much C-14 there was initially. Thus, C-14 is a best guess method, with correction factors, I would presume, thrown in for various eons, which is another assumption.

[@UnKnown-ku7ro]

@@adon2424 Which makes any answer mere guesswork. If you want your fossil to be of a certain age just plug in the needed variables. What about the fact (empirically proven) that after about 10.5 half lives (60,000 years) you can't read the C14 level?

[@robsor85]

"In this example, we are going to assume the starting amount of carbon 14...and we will also assume that the rate of decay has stayed the same" "Lol. All they need is a vacuum to make this experiment extra realistic!

[@sunethrarajapaksha4302]

You can't because rate of decay is decreases when number of nuclei decays.

[@jamescassaniti9694]

I agree it’s horse crap

[@Explainboy786]

After 14 year i got it

[@user-dw8fo6ez4h]

so the half life is different in my text book. it says that the half life of c14 is 5730 yrs

[@imjustagirl9]

Im pretty sure it’s still right, our half life is the same here! 5,730

[@joejohnsoncube]

lol, do we need to use all that formula? Half life of c14 is 5600 years which is 50% of c14 in a fossil. take approx 100% as 5600years x 2 = 11200. 60% of 11200 = 6720. 11200 - 6720 = 4480 years old.

[@jackasorn7397]

Hey Joe, yes we do need all that formula, cause the decaying is happening in real time and not a one time thing, just Google the number e. If it was a one time thing I can make it easier for you 5600*0.4/0.5=4480 and it is wrong, her answer was right

[@joejohnsoncube]

@@jackasorn7397 Thank mate for the info.

[@flyingscience]

You should duplicate this video , repost it with a new tittle : Why Creationism still flourishes despite science and math .

[@robsor85]

Because the creationists see there is no way you can conclusively prove your dates without a time machine and they see you ignoring all your assumptions and checking your work against your previous assumptions. We also see you not realizing this right in front of your own learned eyes, so no! Nobody is arguing with the math coz its right there and we see your variables and assumptions in one beautiful and possibly complete formula! The formula and therefore the answer is determined by the variables...and you assume a bunch of the variables! You assume your formula is a complete way to represent reality. The half life is the only real data that is gathered in the moment...the rest is inference! As in the starting amount, the rate of decay, that nothing happened to change the conditions in that sample in the whole history of the earth from local to any scale out into the local or infinite galaxy and universe beyond. You are even assuming that the rate of influx of these isotopes have been a constant(a f**king constant!) in the whole history of existence just because we have been observing it for what..a 100 years? Please explain the logic? Where does the leap between math and reality happen in your eggy shaped heads?

[@thefootballplanet5784]

My dog would have made a better video...

[@nigam8405]

37075 yrs will be the right ans

[@sunethrarajapaksha4302]

Wrong

[@nothing818]

Gak bisa bahasa inggris

[@nilangaliyanage3833]

Bull shit.