fancy science words half life and isotope dating and ratio

 fancy science words half life and isotope dating and ratio

before i explain how i noticed the trick... lets simplify the terminology

imagine a fictional world with fictional physics in order to remove bias and prejudices

in that fictional place a certain materiel under scientific observation was radioactive and was decaying. the fictionl scientists called it a14 and watched a chunk of fictional pure a14 decay for 100 seconds. in the first 50 seconds 100 units of a14 became 50 units of a14 and 50 of a13 they interpreted this that the radiation left so some of the a14 decayed to a13 which they saw was stable

the next 50 seconds half of the remaining 50 became 25 units of a13 leaving 25 units of a14. the scientists agreed to call it a "half life" because each cycle of fifty seconds half changed. then the fictional scientists argued one said that is constant we can predict what will happen and what had happened in other cycles of fifty seconds. another scientist said that each cycle had a different amount so that is not constant during the 100 seconds of observation.

so the fictional scientists expelled the dissenter and announced a unanimous concensus.

meanwhile other scientists were studying an active volcano they named the melted rock lava. the syrface of the lava cooled and some of the liquid rock solidified on the surface but the liquid under it moved it and caused it to crack so it solidified as separate rocks. the fictional scientists called that rock formation when the rock cooled and solidified into a separate rock witha form and shape.

now that we know the terms, terminology we can combine the ideas: in the fictional world which may be different from the real world and real isotopes and physics, just for simplicity, some radioactive a14 was in the lava and was decaying because that is what happens. when some of the surface cooled some  of the a14 and its product a13 were trapped in the solid rock. why was there any a13? because a14 was decaying even before it cooled.

later scientists tried to make the ratio. in th fictional world they found 6.25 units of a14 and 93.75 units of a13 they estimated its age BASED on the RATIO. 100, 50, 25, 12.5, 6.25 inverse was 50, +25 +12.5+6.25=93.75 proving that it was 200 seconds old since the solid trapped the a14... exactly four cycles but what about the fact that it had been radioactive before the lava cooled? some a113 existed before the lava cooled they cant assume it cooled with only a14. without bias and prejudice of our worrld anybody can admit it could have a13 in it... therefore caculating the "ratio" is silly because some a13 could be frrom before the rock cooled.

similarly in our world what would cause scientists to assume that they can date by "ratio"? whether the sun age of rattion "how much hydrogen fused into helium" by measuring the helium when astrophysists alrady published thatthe heavier elements were fused in stars... meaning some of the helium changed into heavier atoms of oxygen and iron etc. so measuring the helium is silly for a ratio. and worse as above they cant assume zero helium when fusion started same as the a13 and similarly in any isotope "dating" of rocks or carbon 14 to stable c12 the assumption of zero product was "not only not observation" but also self contradicted the idea of constant half life which would mean it had been decaying before the rock cooled so some a13 can be in the cooled rock and nobody can know how much? so we see the flaw in "extrapolating" based on the "ratio" of helium to date sun at 4.5 billion years as well as the "ratio" of whatever isotope in rocks to claim the crust hardened 4 billion years ago. admittedly this does not prove the exact amount just less than the official number because we cant know how much of the ratio was before they "start" i mean before the formation of rock as defined above and the start of fusion in the star when hydrogen started to fuse into helium som ehelium could have existed when it started whatever number of years ago. and worse is the claim of "long" half lifes that was never "observation" that we watched c14 for 5000 years and saw that half of 100 switched but the next 5000 years instead of the constant rate of "50 per 5000 years" which would end in the second cycle only 25 changed this was not observation nor history... but why would scientists make up these long times and call it science?

for whatever reason the fact remains that we dont know if it started pure as above.

conclusion: if not pure then the "ratio of product" wrongly used for sun and isotope, would make something seem older when truly younger. the amount that changed since the solidification was less than the total "we find" when combined with the product trapped when it solidified. i am not claiming thousands of years i am just claiming less than a million.

endnote; if i needed a billion years for amino molecules to fuse into a protein, i would need to make up=ad lib=fantasize a long system with "not constant" radioactive decay and call it constant. since both of these is what they did on our planet as exhibited above.

feel free to reply but without name calling... thanks.