> So, I am suggesting that, to the best of our knowledge, the 14C
>system is NOT in equilibrium, but the ability to calibrate dates
>against samples of known age means that people do not need to explain
>the situation. If this assessment is incorrect, I would appreciate
>an update from Steve.
I do not have the data available to me at this moment but I will post my
evaluation of the 14C data that was sent to Kurt Wise a few years ago. In
the meantime let me describe the problem.
There is 14C being made, and 14C being consumed and the inference is that if
these two processes are not equal then you are out of equilibrium. The
problem is that equilibriums are not measured by instantaneous rates of
change. Let me give you an example. Imagine two kids on opposite sides of
a fence and each yard is filled with a million baseballs. The ratio
1Million/1Million represents the equilibrium. Now imagine that the kid on
one side of the fence throws one ball over the fence and the other kid
throws two balls. If the equilibrium were measured by the rate of throwing
balls over the fence then the system is out of equilibrium by 2/1, but this
is not how equilibriums are measured. The system is, for all practical
purposes still in equilibrium since there are still essentially 1 million
balls on either side of the fence.
This is the situation with carbon 14. Right now the system is making more
14C than is decaying and it is inferred that this means that the system is
out of equilibrium, but when you look at the carbon load, you find that the
system will eventually get out of equilibrium only if the current situation
persists for a long period of time.
It is still my contention that the earth is in 14C equilibrium. The
ramifications of us not being in equilibrium will be addressed when I post
my response to Kurt Wise, which is now a few years old.
Steve