The accuracy of carbon-dating

[Minimalist]

I saw the special on Houdin's "internal ramp" theory. In essence, what he was proposing ( remember, this is EGYPT ) was a cramped, 700 foot long oven. Brier, btw, climbed up to the niche in the pyramid and found nothing to support Houdin's theory.

[Skiessa]

Throwing rice like cracking jokes or being abusive isn't making falsifiable claims ,or providing data , or sources of errors .

whether you are troll or not i'm tired of typing the same comments over and over again just to give you a catch on them, and knowing that all the time we are discussing off-topic. read the discussion we have been having and if you feel that i haven't made you a point of something come up with something new if you feel that way after actually reading what i've written you before.

[Tiompan]

Pointing out where you were wrong or mistaken is not being a troll .
You won't typing the same comments where you were shown to be in error , unaware or waffling to avoid mentioning sources .

[Skiessa]

Pointing out where you were wrong or mistaken is not being a troll .
You won't typing the same comments where you were shown to be in error , unaware or waffling to avoid mentioning sources .

disqualifying the whole argument for the error of not knowing that the rate of precession is currently little less than 72 years is either trolling or plain retardation. the very same link that showed the current rate to be 71,6 years showed that the modern belief is that the precession changes over time, and historically have been measured to be the exact 72 years, which you ignored completely because I didn't provide you my own link which would tell you again the exact same data that was already present in your own argument. -not to mention that even the 71,6 years is so close to 72 years that it could have very well been measured to be the average rate of precession that varies over time.

Read this carefully: the link you provided CLAIMED that the accuracy of 0,05th of a degree could be achieved with ease - it no way proved it.

"unaware or waffling to avoid mentioning sources" the biggest argument i've been using is the out of mind 4 minute per stone minimum which is derived directly from the mainstream archaeological view of what purpose the pyramids were built for and in what time. I don't think i need to provide you a link for this number, since it can be calculated with a pocket calculator with the numbers provided by MA.

What links do you need then, a link to prove you that cutting limestone is painstakingly slow with bronze and copper tools, and that the accuracy with such primitive equipment is horrible? A link to prove you that transporting 2 ton stones without wheel in sand is slow too? A link which proves that building a geometrically perfect pyramid with non-identical stones challenges the human eye and bubble level capability, and again, is freakingly slow? a link which proves that cutting granite in large quantities is practically impossible with such primitive tools at the first place, not to mention the ultra-accurate shaping of the 70 ton granite blocks, and lifting them to tens of meter altitude and placing them so accurately that no piece of paper can fit in between them? the problem with proving the impossibility of this is that no-one has ever tried to replicate the pyramid, all that have been done is some attempts to cut and shape the limestone and granite with the known primitive tools with horrible results. the rate of 1 stone in 4 minutes speaks for itself - the whole assumption of the mainstream archaeology is one big plothole that has been taken for granted because of their desire to believe in the fairytale they've written. the ancient egyptians building the great pyramid has been set as default without being able to answer any of the overwhelming problems that comes along with the assumption - it's not our job to prove this impossible - it's the mainstream archaeology's obligation to prove that it was possible first.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qeS5lrmyD74 5 centimeters in few days using sand and water as catalysts - i wonder why didn't they show the finished stone.

I rest my case here, obviously there is no point of trying to make sense of this to you, regardless of if you are just stupid or trolling. thank you for this enlightening debate.

[Tiompan]

What argument ? I was talking about the points that you got wrong or had illusions about .

I asked for a source of the "magic" 72 figures , more than a couple of times , none was forthcoming .That is the only source or link I asked about .
You clearly didn't have a clue about dating monuments , the use of RC dating , taphonomy , taphonomic logic ,the rate of axial precession ,how to find true north with simple tech at the time of the AE to a similar accuracy etc.
But you do seem to have a belief in a lot of alt ideas that you were unwilling to provide a link to .

Read this carefully , the very first response to your ignorance about the accuracy ."We don't know for sure how they did it but it wasn't that difficult using the tech of the time ."
It's not that difficult , but we couldn't possibly know how it was achieved ,only that it is achievable using the simple tech of the time .
Pointing out errors and mistakes is not trolling .

[E.P. Grondine]

"we couldn't possibly know how it was achieved ,only that it is achievable using the simple tech of the time . "

tiompan, of course we can learn exactly how "it" was done.
As a matter of fact, the ongoing excavations at Giza will likely answer those questions quite definitively.

[Tiompan]

I doubt you even know what is being discussed here , otherwise , a moments consideration would have shown how daft that comment was .
Then again that would have entailed reading and understanding what was being discussed .
Read the context of the comment ,think about it , then respond .

[Skiessa]

"we couldn't possibly know how it was achieved ,only that it is achievable using the simple tech of the time . "

tiompan, of course we can learn exactly how "it" was done.
As a matter of fact, the ongoing excavations at Giza will likely answer those questions quite definitively.

''

i'm happy to hear that they still do excavations in giza. if the mainstream will ever find the definitive evidence for their consensus on the great pyramid construction, i'm happy to accept it.

[E.P. Grondine]

"we couldn't possibly know how it was achieved ,only that it is achievable using the simple tech of the time . "

tiompan, of course we can learn exactly how "it" was done.
As a matter of fact, the ongoing excavations at Giza will likely answer those questions quite definitively.

''

i'm happy to hear that they still do excavations in giza. if the mainstream will ever find the definitive evidence for their consensus on the great pyramid construction, i'm happy to accept it.

skiessa, If you want to know the latest news from Giza, join the Oriental Institute, and they will send you the annual report.

IN the meantime, let me warn you about the spiritual thieves and conmen who will try to exploit you:
http://www.danieljglenn.com/the_podcast ... rt%201.pdf

[Tiompan]

I should have clarified that the comments " I doubt you even know what is being discussed here , otherwise , a moments consideration would have shown how daft that comment was .
Then again that would have entailed reading and understanding what was being discussed .
Read the context of the comment ,think about it , then respond ."

were in response to " of course we can learn exactly how "it" was done.
As a matter of fact, the ongoing excavations at Giza will likely answer those questions quite definitively."

[kbs2244]

Can someone give me a 3 sentence explantion of how axial precession and C-14 are related?

[Tiompan]

Can someone give me a 3 sentence explantion of how axial precession and C-14 are related?

They are not related ,but the alt nut jobs will find a way to link anything that you can put a number on and twist .
e.g. "what really shook me is that when i counted of how many times the 3 60th of a degree would fit in a full circle, i got 7200. 72 - the magical number of years that it takes for the earth to progress one degree in the axial precession. you are aware that the number 72 and it's multipliers appear in the both ancient megalithic structures and the ancient literature all over the world? just what if the 3 60th of a degree wasn't an error at all?"

Just to clarify ,the magic 72 is wrong , but even if it were correct ,it is derived from the amount of error of an alignment .
Who else but the nuts would believe that the value of an error " encodes "anything .
The kind error which varied in the same type of cardinal directions on the same monument and on others at Giza .
The accuracy is an achievement but doable with simple tech available at the time . Other attempts are less accurate producing even greater errors from the "magic" 72 .

[kbs2244]

Well,
I understand your first 4 words.

Then we resume our trip?

[Tiompan]

The first four words are all you need , if you thought that they might be related .

What follows partly explains why they were associated in the "discussions" here .

[Tiompan]

https://www.livescience.com/61799-great ... nment.html
Not entirely convinced that this method is more accurate than his previous suggestion .
However . For those that think " of course we can learn exactly how "it" was done.
As a matter of fact, the ongoing excavations at Giza will likely answer those questions quite definitively."
Note .
" However, whether the ancient Egyptians used this technique is unknown. "
And is extremely unlikely to be discovered by excavation .It is one of a group of possibilities .

For those that believe " nothing of what i know from the ancient human history can explain the astounding accuracy towards the true north, ."
Note "It is hard to imagine a method that could be simpler, either conceptually or in practice,"