Skiessa -
Have you ever considered the idea that the Pyramids may not have been built at the same time as the Spinx?
The accuracy of carbon-dating
Moderators: MichelleH, Minimalist, JPeters
Re: The accuracy of carbon-dating
Huh? Sure. but why do you ask?E.P. Grondine wrote:Skiessa -
Have you ever considered the idea that the Pyramids may not have been built at the same time as the Spinx?
Re: The accuracy of carbon-dating
You had said " nothing of what i know from the ancient human history can explain the astounding accuracy towards the true north, ."
As was explained in the first response to that comment “We don't know for sure how they did it but it wasn't that difficult using the tech of the time “ Dash gives one method Spence another.
I think those folks do “realize how accurate 360th of a degree is “ but the accuracy of the Great Pyramid in relation to true north is nothing like as accurate as 360th of a degree. The accuracy is within 3-4 minutes of arc i.e. closer to a 20th of a degree at best .
“72 - the magical number of years that it takes for the earth to progress one degree in the axial precession. “ .72 is not a magical number , more to the point , the rate of precession is not 1 degree every 72 years your source is 21 weeks out months out ,it's 71 .6 years . Further , even if the AE were aware of the value of precession ,which is by no means certain ,where is the evidence that they used a sexigisimal system ? . As for finding 72 in megalithic structures look hard enough and you'll find any number to suit your agenda .
As was explained in the first response to that comment “We don't know for sure how they did it but it wasn't that difficult using the tech of the time “ Dash gives one method Spence another.
I think those folks do “realize how accurate 360th of a degree is “ but the accuracy of the Great Pyramid in relation to true north is nothing like as accurate as 360th of a degree. The accuracy is within 3-4 minutes of arc i.e. closer to a 20th of a degree at best .
“72 - the magical number of years that it takes for the earth to progress one degree in the axial precession. “ .72 is not a magical number , more to the point , the rate of precession is not 1 degree every 72 years your source is 21 weeks out months out ,it's 71 .6 years . Further , even if the AE were aware of the value of precession ,which is by no means certain ,where is the evidence that they used a sexigisimal system ? . As for finding 72 in megalithic structures look hard enough and you'll find any number to suit your agenda .
-
Springhead
- Posts: 218
- Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2016 4:50 am
Re: The accuracy of carbon-dating
Hello,
I do not profess to know how this amazing structure was made, but as with the construction, say, of a free standing stone chimney, the mason is looking to set corner lines defining, for example, a four sided chimney. As in all strait line masonry, once the corners are established you've got it made. In the chimney scenario a mason would likely have some house or building structure to attach the top of the corner strings. Then the chimney can be built with precision. Perhaps today a pyramid's corners could be defined upwards by the aforementioned laser line with an intense beam visible in daylight, but how the vertical part of the layout lines may have been done is confounding.
Physical stone placements, it would seem, would have to be one layer at a time so the completed level can support the weight of ensuing levels. Rising on multiple locations would create stability problems. I doubt that the stones were finally carved in such perfect shapes that they would fit perfectly to plan, rather than adjusting/refining the last stone for the last gap in an otherwise completed rank of stones. This could be expanded to adjusting the last interior rank in its entirety with all other stones in the level set.
The perceived perfection of the joints is astounding. I heard a theory that in Peru stone workers could have used lichen to make a paste to be smeared between stones, the lichen eating rock until there was insufficient air to survive at which point the stones fit perfectly. Perhaps the initial stone work was not as precise as is now apparent. An issue with this thought is how and when would the structure settle en mass to accommodate the very small loss of stone via lichen paste? Could the perfection of shape be maintained in this scenario?
I could see where two exterior stones could be set at a time per side with the final middle gap filled with a modified stone assuming the work started from each corner. I am unclear about how the central rougher stone could be set other than from the outside in once the exterior stones of the level are set. I cannot imagine how free standing interior ranks could be set unless they touched the next rank outwards (stability). Finally ranked to the center of the level, one fitted stone would complete the level and preserve the stability.
In any masonry project, once you are ca. 5' above grade, the required efforts increase exponentially. Perhaps the stones were moved adjacent to setting locations at night to be ready for daytime installation. It is easier to imagine dragging stone at night than setting it accurately. Loss of work space as the structure gains height adds another exponential factor of inefficiency to be overcome.
The stones in the great pyramid could build a wall ten feet tall and two feet thick around the border of France. That number of stones and all the processes each stone requires to be ready to work with on location would defy the calculations of the world's most talented efficiency expert. Whether the answers to this mystery are inside or outside the box remains to be seen.
I do not profess to know how this amazing structure was made, but as with the construction, say, of a free standing stone chimney, the mason is looking to set corner lines defining, for example, a four sided chimney. As in all strait line masonry, once the corners are established you've got it made. In the chimney scenario a mason would likely have some house or building structure to attach the top of the corner strings. Then the chimney can be built with precision. Perhaps today a pyramid's corners could be defined upwards by the aforementioned laser line with an intense beam visible in daylight, but how the vertical part of the layout lines may have been done is confounding.
Physical stone placements, it would seem, would have to be one layer at a time so the completed level can support the weight of ensuing levels. Rising on multiple locations would create stability problems. I doubt that the stones were finally carved in such perfect shapes that they would fit perfectly to plan, rather than adjusting/refining the last stone for the last gap in an otherwise completed rank of stones. This could be expanded to adjusting the last interior rank in its entirety with all other stones in the level set.
The perceived perfection of the joints is astounding. I heard a theory that in Peru stone workers could have used lichen to make a paste to be smeared between stones, the lichen eating rock until there was insufficient air to survive at which point the stones fit perfectly. Perhaps the initial stone work was not as precise as is now apparent. An issue with this thought is how and when would the structure settle en mass to accommodate the very small loss of stone via lichen paste? Could the perfection of shape be maintained in this scenario?
I could see where two exterior stones could be set at a time per side with the final middle gap filled with a modified stone assuming the work started from each corner. I am unclear about how the central rougher stone could be set other than from the outside in once the exterior stones of the level are set. I cannot imagine how free standing interior ranks could be set unless they touched the next rank outwards (stability). Finally ranked to the center of the level, one fitted stone would complete the level and preserve the stability.
In any masonry project, once you are ca. 5' above grade, the required efforts increase exponentially. Perhaps the stones were moved adjacent to setting locations at night to be ready for daytime installation. It is easier to imagine dragging stone at night than setting it accurately. Loss of work space as the structure gains height adds another exponential factor of inefficiency to be overcome.
The stones in the great pyramid could build a wall ten feet tall and two feet thick around the border of France. That number of stones and all the processes each stone requires to be ready to work with on location would defy the calculations of the world's most talented efficiency expert. Whether the answers to this mystery are inside or outside the box remains to be seen.
Re: The accuracy of carbon-dating
"Dash gives one method Spence another." as i said, i'm happy to see these folks trying to replicate the accuracy of the great pyramid with the methods presented.Tiompan wrote:You had said " nothing of what i know from the ancient human history can explain the astounding accuracy towards the true north, ."
As was explained in the first response to that comment “We don't know for sure how they did it but it wasn't that difficult using the tech of the time “ Dash gives one method Spence another.
I think those folks do “realize how accurate 360th of a degree is “ but the accuracy of the Great Pyramid in relation to true north is nothing like as accurate as 360th of a degree. The accuracy is within 3-4 minutes of arc i.e. closer to a 20th of a degree at best .
“72 - the magical number of years that it takes for the earth to progress one degree in the axial precession. “ .72 is not a magical number , more to the point , the rate of precession is not 1 degree every 72 years your source is 21 weeks out months out ,it's 71 .6 years . Further , even if the AE were aware of the value of precession ,which is by no means certain ,where is the evidence that they used a sexigisimal system ? . As for finding 72 in megalithic structures look hard enough and you'll find any number to suit your agenda .
" is nothing like as accurate as 360th of a degree." NOT 360th of a degree - three 60th of a degree, which is the same as 20th of a degree.
"the rate of precession is not 1 degree every 72 years" the definition of the precessional year seems to vary a little, but the most common definition is approximately 26,000 years, which the 25,920 years derived from 72 years for one degree fits very well. i don't know where you came up with the 71,6 years - care to link?
"where is the evidence that they used a sexigisimal system ?" in no point i have been trying to prove that the egyptians built the pyramids, or that they were more advanced than we are aware of.
but while the 72 is meaningful number only in the 360 degree system, the history of the degree system is unknown and most likely is derived from the 365 days of the year. the same system is very likely to be invented over and over again just because of the simple fact that we have no better base to build our time measurement on than the movement of the skies.
"As for finding 72 in megalithic structures look hard enough and you'll find any number to suit your agenda" it can always be a coincidence, but as the 72 is seemingly random number with strong relation to the mathematics of the earth, the continuous occurrence of the number cannot be just ignored.
Re: The accuracy of carbon-dating
" as i said i'm happy to see these folks trying to replicate the accuracy of the great pyramid with the methods presented. "
What you said was "" nothing of what i know from the ancient human history can explain the astounding accuracy towards the true north, ."
Now you know how it might have been done using the simple tech of the period .
" 3 60th of a degree " is a really daft way of writing 1/20 or 0.005 .
Look at any astronomy web site /book for the figure of 71.6 years ,here is an obvious link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_precession
Could you provide a link for the "magical " 72 " ?
If the AE had used 72 then they were way out . Encoding a value by hiding it within an error is right out of a fantasy alt crowd book or web site ,do tell where you bought this .
72 and the " Mathematics of the earth " that's another "henge technology" .
You can play about with figures from ancient sites to prove anything , metrologists do it all the time ,
although in this case there is no 72 , that belongs to the fantasists who have mangled it from 71.6 not mmm but years i.e. all these so called measurements /encodings would be weeks out .
What you said was "" nothing of what i know from the ancient human history can explain the astounding accuracy towards the true north, ."
Now you know how it might have been done using the simple tech of the period .
" 3 60th of a degree " is a really daft way of writing 1/20 or 0.005 .
Look at any astronomy web site /book for the figure of 71.6 years ,here is an obvious link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_precession
Could you provide a link for the "magical " 72 " ?
If the AE had used 72 then they were way out . Encoding a value by hiding it within an error is right out of a fantasy alt crowd book or web site ,do tell where you bought this .
72 and the " Mathematics of the earth " that's another "henge technology" .
You can play about with figures from ancient sites to prove anything , metrologists do it all the time ,
although in this case there is no 72 , that belongs to the fantasists who have mangled it from 71.6 not mmm but years i.e. all these so called measurements /encodings would be weeks out .
Re: The accuracy of carbon-dating
"At present, the rate of precession corresponds to a period of 25,772 years, but the rate itself varies somewhat with time (see Values below), so one cannot say that in exactly 25,772 years the earth's axis will be back to where it is now." well done misunderstanding what you read. the modern science itself doesn't suggest that this rate is an universal constant, and instead believes that the exact speed varies over time. that's why they most often use the approximate of 26,000 years.Tiompan wrote:" as i said i'm happy to see these folks trying to replicate the accuracy of the great pyramid with the methods presented. "
What you said was "" nothing of what i know from the ancient human history can explain the astounding accuracy towards the true north, ."
Now you know how it might have been done using the simple tech of the period .
" 3 60th of a degree " is a really daft way of writing 1/20 or 0.005 .
Look at any astronomy web site /book for the figure of 71.6 years ,here is an obvious link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_precession
Could you provide a link for the "magical " 72 " ?
If the AE had used 72 then they were way out . Encoding a value by hiding it within an error is right out of a fantasy alt crowd book or web site ,do tell where you bought this .
72 and the " Mathematics of the earth " that's another "henge technology" .
You can play about with figures from ancient sites to prove anything , metrologists do it all the time ,
although in this case there is no 72 , that belongs to the fantasists who have mangled it from 71.6 not mmm but years i.e. all these so called measurements /encodings would be weeks out .
"The first astronomer known to have continued Hipparchus's work on precession is Ptolemy in the second century AD. Ptolemy measured the longitudes of Regulus, Spica, and other bright stars with a variation of Hipparchus's lunar method that did not require eclipses. Before sunset, he measured the longitudinal arc separating the Moon from the Sun. Then, after sunset, he measured the arc from the Moon to the star. He used Hipparchus's model to calculate the Sun's longitude, and made corrections for the Moon's motion and its parallax (Evans 1998, pp. 251–255). Ptolemy compared his own observations with those made by Hipparchus, Menelaus of Alexandria, Timocharis, and Agrippa. He found that between Hipparchus's time and his own (about 265 years), the stars had moved 2°40', or 1° in 100 years (36" per year; the rate accepted today is about 50" per year or 1° in 72 years). He also confirmed that precession affected all fixed stars, not just those near the ecliptic, and his cycle had the same period of 36,000 years as found by Hipparchus."
funny, how you seem to hook on anything that you can get any grasp on in order to avoid the big picture - hook in a way that you don't even attempt to prove me wrong, but rather try to prove that i cannot prove right that one certain point i've made. and like in this case, it wasn't even the bottom line of the comment - just a notion that i found interesting to mention AFTER i had made an argument against the link you've been swinging on my face like it would have provided an argument, which it clearly didn't.
what was your point with this discussion? to claim that if the number 7,200 is a coincidence after all, we must assume that the egyptians built the pyramids? tons of major problems have been underlined with the mainstream theory which you somehow feel no obligation to respond into. i must say this again, that it's very hard to say if you are just trolling or actually trying to argue for the mainstream theory - your whole argument is just puny rhetorics with the clear intent to avoid every question that you cannot answer - the exact same than with almost all the modern archaeology. I mean, you could be swapped with Zahi Hawass without me ever noticing anything.
Re: The accuracy of carbon-dating
Did you read the most obvious link ? If so you missed the critical point ,the one we were "discussing" .Here is the apposite quote from the link : "For identical reasons, the apparent position of the Sun relative to the backdrop of the stars at some seasonally fixed time slowly regresses a full 360° through all twelve traditional constellations of the zodiac, at the rate of about 50.3 seconds of arc per year, or 1 degree every 71.6 years. " Notice the 71.6 years as I had mentioned not 72 years .
As you were told read any reputable book or web site on astronomy and you will get the same answer ,i.e. it's not 72 years .
The point of the "discussion" is that your beliefs are based on fantasy .
You were asked to provide a link to your fantasy 72 years ,but failed to do so.
As you were told read any reputable book or web site on astronomy and you will get the same answer ,i.e. it's not 72 years .
The point of the "discussion" is that your beliefs are based on fantasy .
You were asked to provide a link to your fantasy 72 years ,but failed to do so.
Re: The accuracy of carbon-dating
""At present, the rate of precession corresponds to a period of 25,772 years, but the rate itself varies somewhat with time (see Values below), so one cannot say that in exactly 25,772 years the earth's axis will be back to where it is now." do you understand the meaning of this statement? it indeed claims that the current rate of precussion is 71,6 years, but that it is not constant and has been changing over long periods of time. it's quite logical actually, since the positions of the objects in the solar system don't follow the length of earth's year, meaning that the gravitational pull affecting on the earth changes in a very long cycle.Tiompan wrote:Did you read the most obvious link ? If so you missed the critical point ,the one we were "discussing" .Here is the apposite quote from the link : "For identical reasons, the apparent position of the Sun relative to the backdrop of the stars at some seasonally fixed time slowly regresses a full 360° through all twelve traditional constellations of the zodiac, at the rate of about 50.3 seconds of arc per year, or 1 degree every 71.6 years. " Notice the 71.6 years as I had mentioned not 72 years .
As you were told read any reputable book or web site on astronomy and you will get the same answer ,i.e. it's not 72 years .
The point of the "discussion" is that your beliefs are based on fantasy .
You were asked to provide a link to your fantasy 72 years ,but failed to do so.
"The point of the "discussion" is that your beliefs are based on fantasy ."
if this is all you've got i'm sorry for you.
"You were asked to provide a link to your fantasy 72 years ,but failed to do so"
you did it for me. you'd realize it if you'd stop cherry picking the data that fits in to your belief system.
Re: The accuracy of carbon-dating
I didn't cherry pick .You were the one who said that the rate of precession was the "magical " 72 yrs . I told you it was wrong and supplied the info to prove it .
You were asked where you got your " magical " 72 from ,and failed to do so . Maybe you were too embarrassed to provide the link
You were asked where you got your " magical " 72 from ,and failed to do so . Maybe you were too embarrassed to provide the link
Re: The accuracy of carbon-dating
yes, actually i didn't know that the precession is a variable, and that the current rate of precession is less than 72 years. i'm happy to admit that i was wrong with these two assumptions. should you acknowledge now that the modern science sees the precession as a variable which hasn't always been the number you provided me either?Tiompan wrote:I didn't cherry pick .You were the one who said that the rate of precession was the "magical " 72 yrs . I told you it was wrong and supplied the info to prove it .
You were asked where you got your " magical " 72 from ,and failed to do so . Maybe you were too embarrassed to provide the link
Re: The accuracy of carbon-dating
What don't you understand about the very clear " or 1 degree every 71.6 years." . As you were told , and not the 72 years you claimed ,which makes a mockery of your " magic" 72 yrs .
Why can't you provide the source of this "magic " 72 ?, you must have seen it somewhere .
Why can't you provide the source of this "magic " 72 ?, you must have seen it somewhere .
Re: The accuracy of carbon-dating
will you explode if i throw rice to the forum?Tiompan wrote:What don't you understand about the very clear " or 1 degree every 71.6 years." . As you were told , and not the 72 years you claimed ,which makes a mockery of your " magic" 72 yrs .
Why can't you provide the source of this "magic " 72 ?, you must have seen it somewhere .
Re: The accuracy of carbon-dating
Throwing rice like cracking jokes or being abusive isn't making falsifiable claims ,or providing data , or sources of errors .
-
Minimalist
- Forum Moderator
- Posts: 16033
- Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 1:09 pm
- Location: Arizona
Re: The accuracy of carbon-dating
circumspice wrote:The ball shaped stone hammers were made from a stone called diorite, not dolerite.
Guardian holding Dolerite hammer stone tool at the site of the Unfinished Obelisk, Northern Quarries, Aswan, Egypt
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.
-- George Carlin
-- George Carlin