# Is Carbon a hoax?



## feralimal (Jan 25, 2022)

I want to talk about carbon.  This is may sound odd, but I suspect it does _not_ exist, at least not as we are told.


> Carbon is a primary component of all known life on Earth, representing approximately 45–50% of all dry biomass.[1] Carbon compounds occur naturally in great abundance on Earth. Complex biological molecules consist of carbon atoms bonded with other elements, especially oxygen and hydrogen and frequently also nitrogen, phosphorus, and sulfur (collectively known as CHNOPS).


from Carbon-based life - Wikipedia

According to the common understanding of carbon, carbon is everywhere - it is *the* building block of matter.  Diamonds, graphene, coal - all these are carbon.  Plants, animals are carbon based lifeforms - our own bodies are made of it.  Breathing creatures such as ourselves even create it - we are told we breathe in small amounts of oxygen from the air but expel carbon dioxide.  Carbon as a gas, eg carbon dioxide (co2) is another aspect of carbon too.

I'm not a chemist, so I can't approach this from a chemistry perspective.  However, it is my opinion that it is possible that we can have the wool pulled over our eyes.  I think this has been the case with the coronavirus for example, where it seems that no virus has ever been isolated!  One has to wonder if viruses even exist as we are told!  In the same vein, I want to consider carbon.  It might even be pertinent as there has been a lot of talk about graphene oxide in the vaccines, that could potentially configure themselves into a neural lace in our bodies!  Not to mention climate change.  So what are we talking about?

I don't want to quote wikipedia extensively, but it is useful as a starting point.  We read:


> Carbon (from Latin: carbo "coal") is a chemical element with the symbol C and atomic *number 6*. It is nonmetallic and tetravalent—making four electrons available to form covalent chemical bonds. It belongs to group 14 of the periodic table. Carbon makes up only about 0.025 percent of Earth's crust. Three isotopes occur naturally, 12C and 13C being stable, while 14C is a radionuclide, decaying with a half-life of about 5,730 years. _Carbon is one of the few elements known since antiquity_.
> 
> Carbon is the 15th most abundant element in the Earth's crust, and the *fourth most abundant element in the universe* by mass after hydrogen, helium, and oxygen. Carbon's abundance, its unique diversity of organic compounds, and its unusual ability to form polymers at the temperatures commonly encountered on Earth enables this element to serve as a common element of all known life. It is the second most abundant element in the human body by mass (about 18.5%) after oxygen.
> 
> The atoms of carbon can bond together in diverse ways, resulting in various **allotropes** of carbon. Well-known allotropes include *graphite*, *diamond*, amorphous carbon and fullerenes."


(from Carbon - Wikipedia)

If we look at the carbon page, we can derive the following list of carbon materials:

Graphite (inc Graphene - layers of graphite)
Diamond
hydrocarbons - "most notably the fossil fuel methane gas and crude oil (petroleum)"
Cellulose - "is a natural, carbon-containing polymer produced by plants in the form of wood, cotton, linen, and hemp"
carbon steel - "It can form alloys with iron, of which the most common is carbon steel"
Carbon fiber
Carbon black
Charcoal - "used as a drawing material in artwork, barbecue grilling, iron smelting, and in many other applications")
Coke - "used to reduce iron ore into iron (smelting)"
So there are lots of things that are claimed to be or contain lots of 'carbon'.

My first question is - if it is the 4th most abundant element in the universe, where is it?  It is not possible to see any plain old carbon!  You cannot buy a bag of it at a diy shop, or get your hands dirty with it.  I'm not disputing that you *can* buy coal, and _it is said_ that coal is carbon....  but how can I check?  Coal is coal, why should I also think it is carbon?

One reason I am struggling may be that I am unable to grasp what "allotropes" are.  The word 'allotrope' means "a structurally differentiated form of an element" or in my words a 'different expression' of the same underlying thing.  So the idea is that the basic 'carbon' does exist, but it is then expressed in different ways, eg coal and diamond.

Perhaps a similar example would be water.  The underlying thing that water is, can then be _differently expressed_ as _ice_ or as _steam_.  But this is also a problematic example.   If you have ice or steam there are processes that can convert that back to water.  But there are no processes that can convert a diamond into coal.  We can not convert one expression of carbon into another.

Is it more like a 'category' or grouping then?  Eg we can say 'animals' and know that rabbits and cows are all _types_ of animal.  But for me this also fails as an explanation.  If we are to accept that there is an underlying similarity, we should be able to see it.  So, with rabbits and cows, we can see they move, eat, procreate etc - they have lots of commonality.  This is not evident with carbon - what is the similarity between graphite and diamond?

So, I have a problem verifying carbon's existence and I am not even able to conceive what an allotrope is.  Perhaps if we look at other, non-carbon allotropes we will get a better understanding of what type of a thing carbon allotropes are.

If we look at Allotropy (Allotropy - Wikipedia) we see 5 non-metal elements that have allotropes: Carbon, Phosphorus, Oxygen, Sulfur and Selenium. Looking at Phosphorus (Allotropes of phosphorus - Wikipedia) - we see there are the following allotropes: White phosphorus, Red phosphorus, Violet phosphorus, Black phosphorus and Diphosphorus.

We then read that:


> Red phosphorus may be formed by heating white phosphorus to 300 °C (572 °F) in the absence of air





> Monoclinic phosphorus, or violet phosphorus, is also known as Hittorf's metallic phosphorus. In 1865, Johann Wilhelm Hittorf heated red phosphorus in a sealed tube at 530 °C. The upper part of the tube was kept at 444 °C.





> It[Black phosphorus] was first synthesized by heating white phosphorus under high pressures (12,000 atmospheres) in 1914.


This is still confusing.  With phorphorus it seems that to get the allotropes, we just treat the easily available type (White phosphorus) with heat.  The permanently altered versions that are created and are different, are the allotropes.  Its not like they are really different configurations - its more that as we heat them we progress them through different stages.  However, if allotropes seems like the wrong name, at least we can follow how you can create the different types.

This is not true for carbon.  We cannot treat coal or coke (purer coal) in some way (eg heat or pressure) to create either hydrocarbons or diamond.  Perhaps you will say that we can create diamonds from graphite - which is true.  We can read about the creation of synthetic diamonds (Synthetic diamond - Wikipedia):


> Hall achieved the first commercially successful synthesis of diamond on December 16, 1954, and this was announced on February 15, 1955. His breakthrough was using a "belt" press, which was capable of producing pressures above 10 GPa (1,500,000 psi) and temperatures above 2,000 °C (3,630 °F). The press used a pyrophyllite container in which *graphite* was dissolved within *molten nickel*, *cobalt* or *iron*. Those metals acted as a "solvent-catalyst", which both dissolved carbon and accelerated its conversion into diamond.





> "The first successes used a pyrophyllite tube seeded at each end with thin pieces of diamond. The *graphite* feed material was placed in the center and the metal solvent (nickel) between the graphite and the seeds. The container was heated and the pressure was raised to about 5.5 GPa. The crystals grow as they flow from the center to the ends of the tube, and extending the length of the process produces larger crystals. Initially, a week-long growth process produced gem-quality stones of around 5 mm (1 carat or 0.2 g), and the process conditions had to be as stable as possible. _The graphite feed was soon replaced by diamond grit_ because that allowed much better control of the shape of the final crystal."


What I am reading here is that graphite (plus some other stuff) is used to create diamond.

But even if I accept you can create diamond from graphite, how can I know that graphite is carbon?  It should be possible to create graphite from coal or similar.

Searching for this, there wasn't much that I could find, but I did get to this answer: How to make graphite from wood/charcoal that refers to paper from 1896.  In the paper we read:


> In converting carbon in its ordinary conditions as found in commerce and in nature into pure graphite by subjecting the carbonaceous material to a high temperature, such as is obtained in an electric furnace, it would naturally seem that the purer the carbon used in - charging the furnace the more abundant would be the yield, and _it would perhaps be generally considered that there was a direct transformation or conversion of the carbon into graphite. I have discovered that such is *not* the case_, and that the percentage of graphite produced by highly heating pure carbon in an electrical furnace is insignificant and impracticable. I have also discovered that in order to produce pure graphite from carbonaceous materials there is an indirect conversion, and that the act of _formation of the graphite is more in the nature of an act of disassociation of the carbon from its combination with other materials_ than a conversion of the ordinary carbon into graphite, and that as a preliminary step the carbon has to be combined chemically with some other material. Thus_ I have found that if the car bonaceous material or carbon used in the process contain a considerable proportion of mineral matter, or if it is mixed with a certain proportion of an oxid or oxids, such as silica, clay, alumina, magnesia, lime, or oxid of iron, dac., and subjected to the treatment substantially as hereinafter set forth, the yield of graphite is enormously increased and the, product is most satisfactory_.


From that it seems that the heating of charcoal does _not_ create graphite - "is more in the nature of *an act of disassociation* of the carbon from its combination with other materials _than a conversion of the ordinary carbon into graphite_".  The author needed _to add_ "silica, clay, alumina, magnesia, lime, or oxid of iron" to create graphite. This sounds like graphite is more like a compound of several elements.

As far as I've looked, I'm only finding more questions.  I am not able to verify the provided story that charcoal etc are allotropes.  I do think you can synthesise diamonds in a lab from graphite, but this is only one bit of support for the idea that there are lots of allotropes of carbon.  I do not have evidence that you can synthesise graphite from charcoal.

The problem is that _there should be *lots* of evidence for carbon_.  It should be a straightforward process, commonly described to convert one type to another.  But I do not find much evidence that this this is the case.  I'm not disputing the existence of the materials that are called 'allotropes' (eg graphite, diamond) - but I am disputing that there is any easy evidence to justify this generally accepted story.

*Why is it hard to understand and verify what is meant by carbon and carbon allotropes?  It should be a short and simple story, but it is not.*

Finally one further thought.  When we look at the images related to carbon, we find:



Hexagons, hypercubes and the number 6 have negative connotations from an occult perspective - it was surprising to me to see these in the representations of the chemical structure for the allotropes of carbon.  I'm no believer in the occult.  However, I do believe that some of the controllers of this reality are believers.  I do think it is possible that they would place their symbols in their creations.


----------



## Blackdiamond (Jan 25, 2022)

@feralimal The meaning of occult is hidden. 
As any knowledge / points of wiew that the church / IHS doesnt want one to have, they hide it behind evil and such. Have an open  mind and observe, nothing bad will come from that when you research.


----------



## Gabriel (Jan 26, 2022)

If you are asking for direct evidence that carbon exists, I’m with you in the sense that the over- reliance of science on indirect evidence and indirect testing as a substitute for direct visual proof of existence has perverted science - turned it into a religion. 

When I worked in an organometallic chemistry lab in 2002 I would use NMR spectroscopy to get a better idea of my chemical product from a  reaction.  But that isn’t really proof.  Plenty of conjecture goes into it, then people debate for a while until they agree on a consensus.

Also, They call it an atomic theory for the reason that their is plenty of uncertainty.  

That “orbital” describing  the probability the electrons might be located is a theoretical idea.  

In my opinion, this electron orbit model came from the same wizards (microcosm/macrocosm occult belief).   

Intriguing post, I am discovering each day how much scientists don’t really know.   It is almost taboo to discuss how they don’t know how a cell works and the DNA they don’t understand is junk. Don’t question the chur…

Having been a student of biological sciences, I have decided that I respect engineers and programmers more than chemists, biologicist, and medical doctors - not knowing, from my perspective, I think they function with a higher degree of certainty.  And that is because they are the architects of their own creations

  Crystal structures, from my understanding involves X-ray crystallography where one passes xray through a structure, eg., quartz, and the pictures created are a bunch of dots. This result is analyzed by formulas and algorithms because visualizing the most basic arrangement of atoms is not possible.  Electron microscopy does give a nanometer sized view.

This is a huge subject that I can’t put a dent in.  Interestingly, amazon and lulu has dozens of  self-published books for sale - each proposing a unique replacement to the atomic theory.


----------



## feralimal (Jan 26, 2022)

Gabriel said:


> If you are asking for direct evidence that carbon exists, I’m with you in the sense that the over- reliance of science on indirect evidence and indirect testing as a substitute for direct visual proof of existence has perverted science - turned it into a religion.


Yes - as you dig in, it seems we are not dealing with verifiable knowledge, but belief.  Thanks for sharing your experiences.  I find it especially interesting when people in the field express the same findings.  Please feel free to share any more recollections.

If you haven't already bumped into them, Peter are Pete are excellent for the science deconstruction: https://www.youtube.com/c/PeterPete

I especially love their "100 reasons" analysis on h2o: 100 Reasons Water Is Not H2O, an Ebook by Peter Peterson

The h2o book is a great example of how much we take on faith in science despite never having verified these things personally.


----------



## Akanah (Jan 26, 2022)

You might find it amazing, but according to Wilhelm Reich, blood is actually just water and orgone bions. The blood cells are the orgone bions. One could generally question the concept of spherical atoms and make the assumption whether atoms are not all single-celled organisms.


----------



## Broken Agate (Jan 27, 2022)

This brings into question the entire table of the elements. Are ANY of them real? What really happens when scientists combine different elements to create various chemical compounds? Does "atomic weight" mean anything?

Edit: And what about carbon dating?


----------



## Gabriel (Jan 27, 2022)

Broken Agate said:


> This brings into question the entire table of the elements. Are ANY of them real? What really happens when scientists combine different elements to create various chemical compounds? Does "atomic weight" mean anything?


yes and no.  As the periodic  table progresses, you find elements existing entirely in conditions that are experimental, only briefly, and the manner that they are confirmed is certainly not something one can witness for themselves.  It is intangible.  

The development and implementation of modern science , of chemistry, biochemistry, etc, and all of mankind’s chemical inventions is reliant on  fundamental assumptions of basic chemistry.  
Acid-base theory is a great example.

But it is a logical fallacy for me to claim that just because “the chemistry” works well, it is proof that the scientific fundamentals is valid.  

Let that sink in when you eat margarine next time, jk.

Like I was saying, the systems are so complex and yet advancements are made without a full understanding of the system.

Dogma in science is a major factor in this.  So yes, there is a possibility that the periodic table is a useful tool, but for the wrong reasons.


----------



## feralimal (Jan 27, 2022)

Broken Agate said:


> This brings into question the entire table of the elements. Are ANY of them real? What really happens when scientists combine different elements to create various chemical compounds? Does "atomic weight" mean anything?
> 
> Edit: And what about carbon dating?


I think @Gabriel nails it - people are doing something useful but it is not for the reasons they think.  I think its much more a question of trial error rather than because we have an underlying understanding.  The best terms I have heard for this is 'parallel construction' or 'explanatory science' - an explanation is given, but the terms only have so much relation to verifiable reality.

Also, you mention carbon dating.  There really doesn't seem to be anything magical about this either.  This article talks about this:
Meta-historical conspiracies (Part 3)
and I also posted a comment here here: Meta-historical conspiracies (Part 3)

Basically all they are doing is counting tree rings, and then fudging the numbers to try to count even further back.


----------



## Will Scarlet (Jan 27, 2022)

Just a point of interest; the Spanish word for coal is 'carbón'.


----------



## Blackdiamond (Jan 27, 2022)

Will Scarlet said:


> Just a point of interest; the Spanish word for coal is 'carbón'.



In swedish the word for carbón is "kol" = coal. We dont differentiate coal and carbon, but when you talk about carbon its super thin. 
It is a bit odd wiki says most of the world's coal came to existence before the animal and plants grew big.


----------



## feralimal (Jan 27, 2022)

Blackdiamond said:


> @feralimal The meaning of occult is hidden.
> As any knowledge / points of wiew that the church / IHS doesnt want one to have, they hide it behind evil and such. Have an open  mind and observe, nothing bad will come from that when you research.


My personal approach to all religious artifacts is - 'what are they to do with me?' and 'why should I care?'  I know there is such a thing as the occult, I'm not scared of it - I just tend to ignore it.  I think all this stuff sort of symbology is just the flashing of gang signs.

I mentioned it though, as a/ it seems to be there, and b/ there are other events that seem to also bear these sort of signs - eg 911 (an occult number), _corona_virus.

I explain this as whoever are the scriptwriters are, they seem to have a religion and write their symbols of their beliefs into the script they provide us.


----------



## Rhayader (Jan 27, 2022)

I like Walter Russell's approach and we must consider electric universe implications, but I'm still learning. Here is his periodic table.


----------



## Gabriel (Jan 27, 2022)

Will Scarlet said:


> Just a point of interest; the Spanish word for coal is 'carbón'.


Looks like I will have to ask more questions next time I order tacos al carbon!

Here is one oddity of which I have not found a satisfactory explanation:

Mendeleev invented the periodic table in 1860, but Bohr and Rutherford invented the model of the atom in 1912.

Mendeleev did an incredible job for having no operating model of the atom.
The details are lacking when it comes to how he actually did it.  The descriptions I have seen just state he knew the atomic weights (before the atom was modeled) and ordered them, and he was very close… 

The atom was theorized in 440 BC, except those documents are gone.

Atom may be from the Greek atomos, but I subscribe to the occult explanation- it has a parallel relationship with A’dam and creation.

atomism is  religion evolved into a science- par for the course.


----------



## feralimal (Jan 27, 2022)

Rhayader said:


> I like Walter Russell's approach and we must consider electric universe implications, but I'm still learning. Here is his periodic table.


I see it in under '5th Octave' - so somehow he managed to verify carbon...  I wonder how?


----------



## Nick Weech (Jan 30, 2022)

feralimal said:


> Yes - as you dig in, it seems we are not dealing with verifiable knowledge, but belief.  Thanks for sharing your experiences.  I find it especially interesting when people in the field express the same findings.  Please feel free to share any more recollections.
> 
> If you haven't already bumped into them, Peter are Pete are excellent for the science deconstruction: https://www.youtube.com/c/PeterPete
> 
> ...


Tx for the hint about P&P


----------



## Akanah (Jan 30, 2022)

I thought of something funny; I recently watched the movie Casper again. (In this movie, the haunted house looks like an art nouveau building. ) In this movie, one of the evil ghosts mentioned that living people were CO2 consumers. I thought I wasn't hearing right. Do we humans breathe CO2 ?


----------



## feralimal (Jan 30, 2022)

Akanah said:


> I thought of something funny; I recently watched the movie Casper again. (In this movie, the haunted house looks like an art nouveau building. ) In this movie, one of the evil ghosts mentioned that living people were CO2 consumers. I thought I wasn't hearing right. Do we humans breathe CO2 ?


Ridiculous to say, but really, who knows?  I'd say 'air'.


----------



## Gabriel (Jan 30, 2022)

By the way, CO2 is approximately 0.03% of the air on average.  This makes the man made CO2 -climate change association … far-fetched. 
I think that CO2 Concentration will never rise substantially without killing all of the plants. The plants are the consumers and are in balance with the CO2. More CO2 is a great way to boost plant growth. I think plants would overrun everything if the CO2 levels were somehow artificially elevated.


----------



## feralimal (Jan 30, 2022)

Gabriel said:


> By the way, CO2 is approximately 0.03% of the air on average.  This makes the man made CO2 -climate change association … far-fetched.
> I think that CO2 Concentration will never rise substantially without killing all of the plants. The plants are the consumers and are in balance with the CO2. More CO2 is a great way to boost plant growth. I think plants would overrun everything if the CO2 levels were somehow artificially elevated.


Yes - that story doesn't make sense.  The gas known as co2 is sometimes added to greenhouses to help the plants grow more.  So, you'd think, that if there was extra co2 it would just be absorbed by plants as they grow bigger.

Engaging with the climate change point - my understanding of the whole climate change narrative, is that the Club of Rome were tasked with finding a common enemy of humanity that would provide an acceptable justification for greater control of the populace.  The chosen enemy was 'polluting people' and we can see the plan rolling out - less autonomy, greater control - climate credits, UBI (universal basic income), online everything.  If achieved, the technocratic plan will allow for greater control of every individual - someone (a technocrat or AI) will be able to determine how much energy, water, food, travel, etc each individual can be allocated.  I see the covid dramatics as the means to allow the introduction of an essential part of that plan - a digital id that will allow for entrance into shops, hold your medical health info, store your govcoin, your 'carbon' usage, etc.

The enemy - pollution via excess co2 - isn't real; its just a narrative device.  Still, the plan seems to have been accepted by most and the controllers have proceeded with it.  Global cooling Global warming Climate change is just an idea that has been repeated often enough so that people really do feel bad about themselves - their existence _is_ the problem. To me its the scientific equivalent of 'original sin'.  You are meant to feel bad, helplessly wring your hands in despair and pay for your sins (carbon taxes) as priests scientists try to help us resolve a problem that you cannot quantify or see, that you didn't create and doesn't even exist.

With climate change, I see striking similarities to covid.  I don't hold that viruses even exist (I can't see them, the narrative admits viruses are not alive, etc) - I suspect viruses are just a narrative device.  Without getting into a debate about that, perhaps we can see the control value of being unable to talk about the real problem (that there are no viruses) but instead spend our time talking about whether the proposed measures are justified or not.  When we engage with their planned narrative we end up within a false dialectic (thesis, antithesis) - any outcome (synthesis) will be advantageous to the controllers.  This is often called the Hegelian dialectic, and finds further expression in management tools such as the Delphi Technique.

I see striking similarities with carbon - we are meant to waste our time in the same sort of dialectic - wondering whether the climate change measures are justified, while we have no evidence that carbon even exists!  Getting us talking and debating and agreeing to all the wrong things is the evil genius in all this - this is how we are controlled, imo.  It seems they need a 'MacGuffin' to help them direct the narrative.  I suspect that viruses and carbon are MacGuffins.  (For more on MacGuffins see: What Hitchcock Taught the Social Engineers)

My hope with questioning carbon is to illustrate that if we are able to admit we do not know what it is, any narrative based on carbon will be moot.  The narrative of 'the terrible disaster that is climate change driven by our generating too much co2' will not have any hold on those that don't know what carbon even is - what are they talking about?  Is belief in carbon an acceptable assumption?  It worked something like that for me, anyhow!

FWIW, I don't think these plans are bound to succeed.  I think the greater understanding we have, the more we are based in truth (rather than ego) about what we know or not, the greater resilience we will have to whatever comes our way.


----------



## feralimal (Mar 2, 2022)

_View: https://youtu.be/MV_pTyTMBH0?t=1336_


Peter and Pete talk about carbon, suggesting it is more of the result of carbonisation process than an element.


----------



## wild heretic (Mar 2, 2022)

I'd go further. I'd say a lot of the periodic table is a hoax too. Two examples: hydrogen and oxygen.

Why?

Hydrogen seems to have a different colour according to the type of electrode from which it is emitted. They are no universal characteristics apparently. 

Oxygen can only be produced by man. It doesn't exist in nature. There is only air. Man just takes as much water as he can out of the air (dry air) and calls it "oxygen". I kid you not. Then mankind claims this dry air is what we need to live and plants emit and that it is a part of air. My initial guess is that we need to breathe to get "energy" from the atmosphere, possibly in the form of "charge". We inhale "-" and exhale "+" but even that is a not a great analogy I think.

Most of "science" seems to be based on massive fundamental fraudulent assumptions.


----------



## Referent (Mar 2, 2022)

Interesting question/thread.  Reminds me of why I always used to prefer (enjoy and learn more easily) physics over chemistry.  The way I have summarized it in the past (and IIRC heard it summarized to me...) was basically as follows:

Whereas in physics, basically as one learns more (gets more advanced/detailed), concepts essentially build on (enhance/reinforce/improve) one another,
in *chemistry*, though, basically as one learns more (get more advanced/detailed), *former lies* (insufficient, simplifying models) *get taken away* ("forget about the way you were told to think about it before, and *replace that with this other [more complex] model* instead, [with the implication of--for now, until it, too, gets undone by the required progressions for knowledge advancement]").
Note, this is not to claim that mainstream physics is "correct" or "not a model, too".  Just drawing a distinction that I believe *may be an "accepted belief" even in mainstream chemistry education, to some degree (e.g., not always emphasized)--that "everything is just a model* and not literal, and not even that elegant as a whole, when you think about it, in the case of chemistry".

I don't have examples off hand to back this up, but this personal recollection seemed to fit the gist of the thread.


----------



## Nick Weech (Mar 2, 2022)

feralimal said:


> _View: https://youtu.be/MV_pTyTMBH0?t=1336_
> 
> 
> Peter and Pete talk about carbon, suggesting it is more of the result of carbonisation process than an element.



Pete and Peter have a lot to say. They're iconoclastic guys


Nick Weech said:


> Pete and Peter have a lot to say. They're iconoclastic guys


They don't say EVERYONE is insane but a lot of people are- and have no idea that they are. Look back over last two years ...


----------



## Nick Weech (Mar 3, 2022)

Nick Weech said:


> Pete and Peter have a lot to say. They're iconoclastic guys
> 
> They don't say EVERYONE is insane but a lot of people are- and have no idea that they are. Look back over last two years ...


I'm not surprised P&P have so few comments- they have very challenging views


----------



## PantaOz (Oct 4, 2022)

Broken Agate said:


> This brings into question the entire table of the elements. Are ANY of them real? What really happens when scientists combine different elements to create various chemical compounds? Does "atomic weight" mean anything?
> 
> Edit: And what about carbon dating?



The more you learn, the more you're confused... everything is becoming like hocus-pocus in the science... 

C14 analysis of oil from Gulf of Mexico deposits showed an age measured in thousands of years - not millions. Data produced by the Petroleum Institute at Victoria, New Zealand, showed that petroleum deposits were formed 6,000-7,000 years ago. Textbooks state that petroleum formation took place about 300,000,000 years ago (Velikovsky, 1955, p.287; CRSQ , 1965, 2:4, p.10).  Fossil wood was found in an iron mine in Shefferville, Ontario, Canada, that was a Precambrian deposit. Later the wood was described as coming from Late Cretaceous rubble, which made it about 100 million years old instead of more than 600 million years old. Two independent C14 tests showed an age of about 4000 years (Pensee , Fall 1972, 2:3, p.43)


----------



## Nick Weech (Oct 5, 2022)

Nick Weech said:


> I'm not surprised P&P have so few comments- they have very challenging views


I'm not surprised few have even considered P&P: It's a giant leap and we don't want to be challenged to think, rather than to accept stuff.


feralimal said:


> I think @Gabriel nails it - people are doing something useful but it is not for the reasons they think.  I think its much more a question of trial error rather than because we have an underlying understanding.  The best terms I have heard for this is 'parallel construction' or 'explanatory science' - an explanation is given, but the terms only have so much relation to verifiable reality.
> 
> Also, you mention carbon dating.  There really doesn't seem to be anything magical about this either.  This article talks about this:
> Meta-historical conspiracies (Part 3)
> ...


Douglas Keenan @ Infomath.org has done some analysis on C14 and tree ring dating


----------



## PantaOz (Oct 8, 2022)

Nick Weech said:


> I'm not surprised few have even considered P&P: It's a giant leap and we don't want to be challenged to think, rather than to accept stuff.
> 
> Douglas Keenan @ Infomath.org has done some analysis on C14 and tree ring dating


One way to infer how the atmospheric concentration of carbon-14 changed in the past is by tree-ring dating. Some types of trees, that grow at high elevations and have a steady supply of moisture, reliably add only one ring each year. In other environments, multiple rings can be added in a year ! 



> The thickness of a tree ring depends on the tree's growing conditions, which will naturally vary from year to year. Some rings may even show frost or fire damage. By comparing sequences of ring thicknesses in two different trees, a correspondence can sometimes be shown. Ring patterns will correlate strongly for two trees of the same species that grew near each other at the same time. Weaker correlations (or less confident matches) exist between trees of different species growing simultaneously in different environments. Claims are frequently made that wood growing today can be matched up with some scattered pieces of dead wood so that tree-ring counts can be extended back more than 8,600 years. This may not be true.
> 
> These claimed "long chronologies" begin with either living trees or dead wood that can be accurately dated by historical methods. This carries the chronology back perhaps 3,500 years. Then the more questionable links are established based on the judgment of a tree-ring specialist. Standard statistical techniques could establish just how good the dozen or more supposedly overlapping tree-ring sequences are. However, tree-ring specialists refuse to subject their judgments to these statistical tests, and they have not released their data so others can carry out these statistical tests.






> There are some general problems with constructing a chronology by piecing together records of tree rings from different trees.  When trying to find the best solution to a problem like this, there are generally a huge number of possible solutions.  So one uses a heuristic program to try to find a good one.  There may also be many other solutions that are nearly as good.  In fact, there may be others that are even better.  So it's not clear to me that there is one clear-cut chronology based on tree ring dating.  It was claimed that carbon 14 levels were not considered at all in constructing this chronology.  I'd like to have his reference for that.  In such a case, one typically defines a goodness function for each solution, and this could incorporate the desire to maintain a nearly constant carbon 14 level in the atmosphere.  Add to this the fact that different trees can respond differently to the same climatic condition, and the fact that trees sometimes have more than one ring (especially if there is more than one rainy season per year) and one has even more uncertainty.  Without a very thorough examination of the data, it's hard to know how to interpret the result.  I'd be interested to know what the authors of this work say about the existence of other chronologies, and how much less of a good fit they are.
> 
> In such an optimization problem, it is difficult to know if one has the true solution, so not much weight should be given to the chronology obtained.  It's not enough just to eyeball it and say it looks convincing.  It should be subjected to several optimization procedures and one should also optimize for shorter chronologies as well to see how much (if any) the quality suffers.
> 
> Someone gave me some information about constructing tree ring chronologies by piecing together sub-chronologies.  But in a problem like this, sometimes one can get a better solution in the end by taking a sub-optimal choice along the way.  So the described procedure will not necessarily find the best chronology.



Here is an interesting e mail from February 11, 1998:



> As one who has taught dendrochronnology, I have a few opinions on this particular subject.  Also, one of my graduate students went to work for Ferguson in his lab at U of A, and in fact was the curator of his work after his death, and is presently probably the only one who knows anything about how he [Ferguson] produced the bristlecone chronology. Another of my graduate students gave a seminar to the lab on dendrochronology of fossil trees and had ample opportunity to analyze the procedures there, and to work with Ferguson for a while.  I can say on pretty firm grounds that the Bristlecone chronology before 4000bp is fraught with problems and unanswered questions.  While Ferguson was alive, he never allowed anyone to analyze his original data or the bases for the many suppositions that went into the establishment of the chronology. Thus the chronology was not subjected to the normal rigors of science.  This is regrettable, because I believe he was a careful and sincere scientist.  Of course one could always excuse Ferguson for not revealing the bases of his decisions (for example, the most important rings in any chronology are the "missing rings" which have to be added by the investigator). But suffice to say the chronology before 4000bp is entirely dependent on C14 dates of the wood, and is thus tautologous.  This does not mean it is meaningless or necessarily wrong, just that I wouldn't base too much on it.



Another article discussing difficulties with tree ring chronologies can be found at  http://www.tagnet.org/gri/w/articles/or22_47.htm .


----------

