17-07-2022, 07:48 PM
Rene,
This is an old topic regarding the C-14. And I know the many discussions with Rich S*C.
I am not suggesting your interpretation is wrong. I believe there two different ways to interpret the data. While your position is that all samples are statistically identical, I agree. But I suggest that statistical identity and physical identity are not necessarily the same. And the reason for that is the multiple decades-wide, margin of error that is inherent in the C-14 test results.
Again, I refer to the astronomical analogy. In the night sky, you see a star. You get the binoculars, and you still see a single point of light. Then with a serious telescope, there is the resolution of a close binary star. The C-14 test gets us to the second stage, but not to the third, because of the decades-wide margin of inherent error in the C-14 data. Do the four different data results come from the inherent uncertainty in the test process <of course> or from actual differences in the parchment samples <perhaps>? There is no way to differentiate.
A more accurate method of dating still might confirm that the statistical and physical identities are the same. All data variation is inherent in the test. That is one possibility. And the other possibility is that those physical identities, within the *decades-wide* *statistical* identity, are *not* the same. And the primary significance of a binary system would be a chronological shift based on the youngest parchment sample, *if* there are two actual parchment sources. A binary physical identity within the statistical range doesn't alter the statistics. However, a binary physical identity has the potential to advance VMs creation chronology a bit. We just don't know. We are at stage two, we have the statistics, we just don't have the physical reality, because of the inherent margin of error.
This is an old topic regarding the C-14. And I know the many discussions with Rich S*C.
I am not suggesting your interpretation is wrong. I believe there two different ways to interpret the data. While your position is that all samples are statistically identical, I agree. But I suggest that statistical identity and physical identity are not necessarily the same. And the reason for that is the multiple decades-wide, margin of error that is inherent in the C-14 test results.
Again, I refer to the astronomical analogy. In the night sky, you see a star. You get the binoculars, and you still see a single point of light. Then with a serious telescope, there is the resolution of a close binary star. The C-14 test gets us to the second stage, but not to the third, because of the decades-wide margin of inherent error in the C-14 data. Do the four different data results come from the inherent uncertainty in the test process <of course> or from actual differences in the parchment samples <perhaps>? There is no way to differentiate.
A more accurate method of dating still might confirm that the statistical and physical identities are the same. All data variation is inherent in the test. That is one possibility. And the other possibility is that those physical identities, within the *decades-wide* *statistical* identity, are *not* the same. And the primary significance of a binary system would be a chronological shift based on the youngest parchment sample, *if* there are two actual parchment sources. A binary physical identity within the statistical range doesn't alter the statistics. However, a binary physical identity has the potential to advance VMs creation chronology a bit. We just don't know. We are at stage two, we have the statistics, we just don't have the physical reality, because of the inherent margin of error.