|
Post by Doo on Jun 20, 2012 8:14:19 GMT -5
Correct!
|
|
|
Post by russm on Jul 26, 2012 1:09:00 GMT -5
What scientific error did Velma make in the episode 3-D Struction?
|
|
|
Post by laescoobyfan on Jul 26, 2012 9:14:33 GMT -5
I would have to watch that episode again.
|
|
|
Post by Doo on Jul 26, 2012 9:35:11 GMT -5
What scientific error did Velma make in the episode 3-D Struction? She thought real gold was fool's gold.
|
|
|
Post by russm on Jul 26, 2012 14:51:21 GMT -5
Nope, this was a much more fundamental blunder. In fact what she said she did is impossible to do.
|
|
|
Post by Doo on Jul 26, 2012 17:15:41 GMT -5
Not sure then. That's an episode I haven't seen for some time now.
|
|
|
Post by laescoobyfan on Jul 26, 2012 20:38:50 GMT -5
I just watched the episode, but didn't catch anything. So, what is it?
|
|
|
Post by russm on Jul 27, 2012 3:22:50 GMT -5
When sitting in the museum lab Velma says she carbon dated the fossil bones. Carbon dating will only get you back around 100,000 years (using lake sediments and dendrochronology to obtain the C12/C14 calibration curves). You cannot use C14 dating on fossils as there are simply not enough C14 atoms left. To date fossils you have to use different methods as Velma should have known.
|
|
|
Post by laescoobyfan on Jul 27, 2012 8:19:24 GMT -5
It seemed to have worked for her though. When did she say carbon dating will only go back 100,000 years?
|
|
|
Post by russm on Jul 27, 2012 10:22:42 GMT -5
It seemed to have worked for her though. When did she say carbon dating will only go back 100,000 years? She didn't, the technique simply doesn't work for objects past that date as there aren't enough C14 atoms left to date with. Assuming that the creature was a T. rex (one of the last non-avian dinosaurs before the Chicxulub impact) it has to be at least 65 million years old way out the range of the technique. That is why I said it was a scientific error.
|
|
|
Post by laescoobyfan on Jul 27, 2012 13:29:40 GMT -5
It seemed to have worked for her though. When did she say carbon dating will only go back 100,000 years? She didn't, the technique simply doesn't work for objects past that date as there aren't enough C14 atoms left to date with. Assuming that the creature was a T. rex (one of the last non-avian dinosaurs before the Chicxulub impact) it has to be at least 65 million years old way out the range of the technique. That is why I said it was a scientific error. We have to consider, not everything is the exact same in the world that they live in. It may not work in our world, but it must in theirs.
|
|
|
Post by russm on Jul 27, 2012 16:31:35 GMT -5
We have to consider, not everything is the exact same in the world that they live in. It may not work in our world, but it must in theirs. [/quote] True but I suspect it is either the result of poor research on the writers part or them picking the one dating method they have heard about and suspect that viewers might know about. She could have simply said "I dated the fossils using the museum laboratory..." and lt would be fine. Steps down off hobby horse and wanders off to find a cookie.
|
|
|
Post by laescoobyfan on Jul 28, 2012 23:59:11 GMT -5
That was a tough question for trivia. I don't think very many people would have got it right.
|
|
|
Post by russm on Jul 29, 2012 5:55:13 GMT -5
That was a tough question for trivia. I don't think very many people would have got it right. I'm a bit of a science nerd.
|
|
|
Post by laescoobyfan on Jul 29, 2012 11:08:54 GMT -5
I can tell!
|
|