| Author | Message | ||
     oscar roberts (200.151.18.23) |
Process uranium-lead is expensive, they prefer using the unsafe rubidium-stroncium.Carbon 14 which turns out nitrogen 14 half-life is only 5730 years and ain`t efficient if there was MORE MAGNETIC proportion in the past of the atmosphera (some discuss it happened 4000 years ago),it shouldn`t be used on stone. A dead seal moments after was dated 1300 years old, Siberian mamooth skin (animal which lived 26,000 years ago as suposition)was dated only 5600 years. One of the swiss members in a laboratory measured a recent piece of cloth on his table and the result with this cientific method was 350 years old! Even the pioneers using C-14 didn`t give it the credit now it`s been given. Many people think even nuke disasters affected our atmosphera to the point it altered all measuring of activity in time. Argon-potasium half life is 1300 million years and determines volccanic rock.The scientists have to GUESS the bones beneath rock may be equal data or older. It ain`t exact in dates less than 1 million and they must have faith in using human beings of Pleistocene or believe volcanic action DISSAPEARED ABSOLUTELY ALL original argon in melted lava. If it remains a little bit, cristalyzed, if there was atmospheric pollution, if sediments below are younger..a simple date 5000 is INFLATED 2 and a half million! Proportion between uranium 238 and lead 206 in wood converted coal should be low but it wasn`t in all cases. Potasium,uranium,torium lost of radiactivity can`t be measured in amounts if we don`t know zero point of ORIGINAL CONCENTRATION. The same elements and rubidium-stroncium can be damaged by radiation itself. Aminoacids don`t serve in stones. Also the organic rests can be asimilated or destroyed by organic acids. Zircon crystals formed in magma are difficult to find and geo-chemists grab these as a gift of God. They are trying to find out levogire aminoacids and date with optic stimulated luminiscense.Another method is watching rings of the trees,etc. So please, DON`T TALK ABOUT ABSOLUTS NOR IN HISTORY NEITHER IN PRE-HISTORY.In matter of time we`re watching time with a clock without pointers! This certainly concerns historians,geologists,egyptologists. Maybe you can say, ok,we can trust better astronomers. Can we? They use trigonometry to see distances of far away stars,yet they trust paralex method that should be applied to NEAR STARS.A celestial object would move in relation to set constelations near us when observed from 2 distant points on the surface of the Earth.The smallest angle we can stare naked eye is just a minute of a bow or 1|60 of 1 degree. Einstein said nothing about finite or infinite volume of space.Using cristalography to detect space topology now a new theory rises. It seems billions of galaxies REPEAT images of smaller galaxies. Using hipersphere or poincare space (a kind of dodecaedr)with 120 times smaller volume than hipersphere, they are guessing our universe is like spheric lens,maybe smaller and creating OPTIC ILLUSIONS.We`re like fishes in acuarium. | ||
| oscar roberts (200.188.183.207) |
Brent and Rick in other similar subtitle wrote about socratic and scientific answers. They wrote about not knowing my personal point of view.It doesn't matter this.I'm writing about science here and not circunscribe about fakes and guessing with C-14.I'm giving all the names of elements for you to investigate instead of just make references about my point of view.This is not objective but reveals intolerance and the unbearability to accept we're stepping on swamp instead of science. | ||
| Brent Benjamin (12.4.169.51) |
I think not, inasmuch as you haven't yet listed Lehner's research (indicating a lack of research on your part). The time measures used vis-a-vis Ancient Egypt are accepted mainstream science. They have been subjected to peer review. You may be a fish in an aquarium. I am not. Your position is fringe. | ||
| oscar roberts (200.217.3.191) |
Brent,Brent, you`re so wise maybe you can tell me why so many dates are given to first dynasty in Egypt, to give an example.If we can`t give a simple date with not just an artifact or monument but a whole period of time with differences from 1000 to 3000 years, what are you talking about? Lehner also knows this. You don`t answer specific argument just give other references.Don`t talk about generalities, write something specif you didn`t agree.Tell me something in Egypt with a unique data in every single book..you won`t find neither in Egypt nor in every single part of the world.More than that, the more you write down all what is written in the books, you`ll get a huge FILE during the years, usually tendency is increasing the number.Do your homework.In your answers just give specific scientific information rather than wondering what`s my point of view.That`s not relevant neither socratic. | ||
| Brent Benjamin (12.4.169.51) |
Oscar, Oscar, apparently I am not so wise to make heads or tales about what you have written. Let's see, you make a flame posting above about Rick and myself when neither of us have posted on this string and express astonishment that one of us responded. Then in one truly disjointed paragraph also apparently designed as a flame posting, you raise the 1st dynasty, dates, periods from 1000 to 3000 years, Mark Lehner, generalities, specifics, homework, and socraticism among other things. Okay. You imply knowing what Mark Lehner knows. Do you? I do. I have spoken with him about the dating project at Giza. As for 1000 to 3000 years with respect to the dating of Ancient Egypt, I trust you are not being serious - at least I hope for your sake you are not. As for homework, your postings confirm to me that I have done more primary research than you in Egypt and about Egypt. As for socraticism, I did not raise it here, but suffice it to say, my doctoral degree resulted from years of socraticism in a graduate curriculum at a world renowned university. Did yours? As for irrelevance, care to read your postings again? | ||
| Bern (63.149.20.43) |
Oscar, Brent has just Socrated it to you, and you deserved it. So far you have posted nothing but disjointed fuzzy logic statements that make no sense to anyone but you. You can better spend your time by reading some books, like "The Complete Pyramids" and others in that series and come back when you can offer a better contribution to the board. | ||
| oscar roberts (200.151.58.119) |
Too many words sayingabsolutely nothing about the main title. So please, experts,rather than talking about me and wasting your energy can you be objective and say something about the main title? What exactly are your methods measuring time? What is your source to determine c-14 is completely exact? I already mentioned other methods as well, can you say exactly what is wrong instead of writing generalities? You`re in the same point above. Don`t lecture me, answer the critics with information.It doesn`t intimidate and the readers would think since you have nothing to respond you practice inquisition or philistian tactics. Thanks for exposing your attitude. I`m satisfied! | ||
| oscar roberts (200.151.58.119) |
By the way, it wasn`t my own opinion. Re-read the first one. You lecture me because you`ve been reading some other things I wrote in Ancient Egyptian History: under the subtitle Traces of Egypt in other continents and Something Unusual about Egypt. Also under Miscellaneous in Ancient Egypt Bible Proofs,etc. Let the readers judge if I do my homework or not and write about Egypt.Then again, I say unto you:Not even Hawass who is the most famous egyptian archeologist in the world knows the scientific methods to build a pyramid. Not all archeologist agree in setting a unique data on First Dynasty and the rest.Even we can speculate who was the sphinx representing. Different books have different years. A variation of 500 years or 1000 years represents nothing in human history but indeed something about specific period of time. Thanks for the publicity! | ||
| oscar roberts (200.188.180.40) |
Brent, I re-read what you wrote, it's difficult to communicate by mail or letters but I didn't make myself clear. I respect your studies and the fact you even ask Mark Lehner. I wanted to say sometimes even professionals TRUST tto much in the procedures in spite of been experts doing the measures. Even student of Switzerland (Sahu) wrote about innumerable incertaties of the procedure. The same can be said about the rest of the methods. I also consulted books,egyptologist in Egypt and other professionals who sometimes in a naive way, didn't consider even questioning things.Did you specifically ask him WHY does he trust or have confidence in c-14 or what are the odds against the method specially compared with others? If so what was his answer?I didn't want to give the impression I know too much ,Who does? | ||
| charliemaguire (159.134.209.43) |
organic matter in the mixing water containing older sedements is more likely than the wood charcoal mixed with gypsum idea ,to put a coherant rc signature in the motar charcoal contamination would be a bit obvious ,if their roasting oven tecneques were that bad | ||
| oscar roberts (200.216.149.58) |
Charliemaquire,thanks,that's the kind of answer I liked,straight to the point,heart of the matter and not beating around the bush. |
