Wait, did that character in this movie just include in his evidence
for time travel, that they'd carbon dated the gold
bouillon? Five minutes in and I'm already flinching; not the
best omen.
Never mind the inherent impossibility: Carbon dating anything would be dubious evidence of time travel. Well, maybe an artifact in distinctive and recent style--a Shaker lemon-reamer or Louis XIV chair--that carbon-dated as thousands of years old could be evidence.
*nod* That was the second thing that struck me, in between shouting at the television and grabbing the keyboard. But then I figured that could be retconned by saying that they had some other means of absolutely, positively authenticating the date of the gold, in which case the (*wince*) "carbon dating" (gee, it hurts to type that in context) saying it was too new would be the giveaway.
... Even though in every realistic scenario I can imagine, they would have taken such a discrepancy as a sign that the other authentication had been somehow forged.
The third thing that occurred to me was that I thought carbon dating wasn't useful over time periods as short as 150 years -- the gold in the movie was supposed to have been from the American Civil War -- but a) I might have misremembered that, and b) it's a science fiction movie so maybe they'd made some SFnal advances in that technology.
So they blew the science inexcusably at a seventh-grade level (if not lower), blew the logic in a way they could've rationalized by adding extra plot complexity, and maybe blew the technology as well ...
Three strikes, in one line -- one set-up-the-background-so-we-can-start-the-plot line -- of dialogue. Kinda painful.
You are right, something as recent as the American Civil War would not be carbon datable. Radiocarbon dating is one good for 300 to 50K years. (although dates of up to 75K BP have been recorded, things are changing daily) Mostly I think it's because of the Industrial Revolution which started shortly after the Civil War and really changed the amount of carbon in the atmosphere which skews the C14 absorbtion and decay in objects that absorb it.
You know, G hates to watch movies that involve archaeology or anthropological themes because I'll sit there correcting the mistakes out loud or sighing loudly and shaking my head.
I love Indiana Jones for the entertainment value of the films, but that is so *not* what archaeology is all about. But for Harrison Ford I'm willing to suspend belief. :)
archaeology or anthropological .... I'll sit there correcting the mistakes....
I get like that about musicians on screen &ndash "(S)He's not playing that [whatever]. Why can't they hire real musicians to be the extras playing instruments, instead of actors who don't have a clue? We can tell the difference, you know!"
Yup, G (my partner, I think you met him at Baitcon) is like that about musicians too. He'll point out "see he's not really making that chord, he's faking it!"
Like him, when I do it in an archaeology context, I nod my head and say "yes dear." :)
:-þ Cut me some slack; I was trying to type while still clutching my head like a stunned monkey at the bad science ... (that excuse ought to be good for at least one error, right?)
How much trouble is it to call up a museum or archaeologist and ask them how THEY would authenticate something like gold bullion bricks to a specific period? I'm sure they have ways -- some of which are going to be chemical-analysis related (for characteristic impurities generated by a specific process or something). It's a line of dialog that could have been slightly tweaked and made much more accurate with a few phone calls or emails. (Even saying "according to the lab, this gold was probably purified around X date" and be vague about the exact method the "lab" used...)
We have the Internet now. NO excuses for not researching -- at least enough to find an expert to ask questions of!
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
... Even though in every realistic scenario I can imagine, they would have taken such a discrepancy as a sign that the other authentication had been somehow forged.
The third thing that occurred to me was that I thought carbon dating wasn't useful over time periods as short as 150 years -- the gold in the movie was supposed to have been from the American Civil War -- but a) I might have misremembered that, and b) it's a science fiction movie so maybe they'd made some SFnal advances in that technology.
So they blew the science inexcusably at a seventh-grade level (if not lower), blew the logic in a way they could've rationalized by adding extra plot complexity, and maybe blew the technology as well ...
Three strikes, in one line -- one set-up-the-background-so-we-can-start-the-plot line -- of dialogue. Kinda painful.
(no subject)
Sorry, it's the archaeology training... :)
(no subject)
yup
Re: yup
I love Indiana Jones for the entertainment value of the films, but that is so *not* what archaeology is all about. But for Harrison Ford I'm willing to suspend belief. :)
Re: yup
I get like that about musicians on screen &ndash "(S)He's not playing that [whatever]. Why can't they hire real musicians to be the extras playing instruments, instead of actors who don't have a clue? We can tell the difference, you know!"
Re: yup
Like him, when I do it in an archaeology context, I nod my head and say "yes dear." :)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
LOL!!!
We have the Internet now. NO excuses for not researching -- at least enough to find an expert to ask questions of!