> Since we need to introduce the possibility of
> contamination with modern carbon, that would be
> akin to mixing a lower volume (e.g., relatively
> modern) signal into your original signal which
> would artifactually reduce the resulting volume of
> the original signal, so you might never get above
> a 9 or 10 even though the original signal was up
> at 20.
No, it depends on how old the sample is and how much contamination has occurred which to explain the results would have to apply straight across the board, uniformly, to over 400 samples from 2 tests 11yrs apart tested in multiple labs. Modern contamination happens in the lab, not in the field, so are we to expect all of these labs to be tainting their samples in the same way sample after sample little different 11yrs apart? This does not seem reasonable if even possible.
And regardless, modern contamination affects a sample less and less the younger it is and no matter what isn't going to tack on thousands of years. For convenience I quote Wikipedia:
Any addition of carbon to a sample of a different age will cause the measured date to be inaccurate. Contamination with modern carbon causes a sample to appear to be younger than it really is: the effect is greater for older samples. If a sample that is 17,000 years old is contaminated so that 1% of the sample is modern carbon, it will appear to be 600 years younger; for a sample that is 34,000 years old the same amount of contamination would cause an error of 4,000 years. Contamination with old carbon, with no remaining 14
C, causes an error in the other direction independent of age – a sample contaminated with 1% old carbon will appear to be about 80 years older than it really is, regardless of the date of the sample.
So if a 17,000yr (15,000BC) old sample appears only 600yrs younger with 1% modern contamination it would take 18-20% contamination to get that sample to appear to be 5,000yr (3,000BC) old. There is no stretch of the imagination to make this plausible.
> Also, we need to consider the possibility that the
> sampled mortar might have been applied by the OK
> long after the original date of construction...
As I said before, the joints of many blocks are slathered with mortar which you can see where it has oozed out between them. Romer estimates over 500,000 tons of mortar was used in construction. For this to be the work of restorers thousands of years after the fact it would equate to them refacing nearly the entire exterior of the core, if not all of it, and this assumes of course the casing stones were not there.
> And of course, there's the artifacts introduced by
> the assumptions made in the "expected"
> distribution to ensure the data samples fit that
> distribution (as hinted by drrayeye's post in this
Other than drilling into the interior to hopefully find a sample or two, there is nothing else that is going to be any better than the samples collected. Again, over 400 samples were taken which all tell the same story which just so happened to not be the story Egyptologists wanted to hear. Twice.
Again, over 400 samples say the same thing which the '84 study in particular clearly gave results Egyptologists did not want to see. What Onvlee was saying about the '95 study is they used averages as the range points and not the actual samples which would have made the '95 study little different than the '84.
Regardless, I have no interest in continuing this conversation as it is not productive.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 19-Jun-16 18:10 by Thanos5150.