Archeology and Ancient Human Activity

Historic planetary instability and catastrophe. Evidence for electrical scarring on planets and moons. Electrical events in today's solar system. Electric Earth.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: Archeology and Ancient Human Activity

Unread postby Grey Cloud » Thu Jan 14, 2016 6:33 pm

seasmith wrote:
The frozen carcass of a young male woolly mammoth discovered in 2012 in Siberia shows signs that it died from an attack by human hunters, according to a study published in Science today.
Thanks to radiocarbon dating — a technique that uses the properties of carbon to assign a date to organic materials inside bone — scientists were able to narrow down the timing of the attack.
They concluded that the mammoth lived and died at a latitude of 72 degrees north, about 45,000 years ago. And that's surprising because scientists previously thought that humans from that period hadn't made it past 55 degrees north — a latitude that isn't far north enough to be considered part of the Arctic Circle in Russia.

https://www.yahoo.com/tech/frozen-mammo ... 41661.html


What's the margin of error for radiocarbon dating ?
~

Apologies if the question was rhetorical but... the margin of error depends on the 'confidence' factor, e.g. 2016 +/-25yrs (95%). Where the figure in brackets is the confidence factor. I think the word used is 'confidence or maybe 'certainty''. Also, according to my understanding, the lab needs to have a rough idea of the time period involved so it can look-up the amount of carbon-14 that was in the atmosphere at that time (and hence subtract what's in the specimen from it). This look-up chart comes from the dendrologists. To me, at least, there seems something tautological about the process - you give me a sample and tell me when you think it's from and I'll make the sample jump through statistical hoops until it agrees with your date. We both go home happy and the cheque's in the mail.

"The mammoth was attacked by humans who used some projectiles."
Well you're not going to go toe-to-toe with it are you? :roll:
If I have the least bit of knowledge
I will follow the great Way alone
and fear nothing but being sidetracked.
The great Way is simple
but people delight in complexity.
Tao Te Ching, 53.
Grey Cloud
 
Posts: 2477
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:47 am
Location: NW UK

Re: Archeology and Ancient Human Activity

Unread postby webolife » Mon Jan 25, 2016 2:55 pm

I agree with Grey Cloud's general response to the radiocarbon dating tautology.
While the concept of the dating method is reasonable, the current ratio of C14 to C12 is only about 1 to a million million, so the accuracy of the method is fundamentally at risk. In addition, I would hypothesize that the amount of C14 in the atmosphere at the time of the mammoth hunting was significantly less than the current "equilibrium" model for C14 production in the upper atmosphere and its assimilation in the biosphere. Thus a date of upwards to 50K years BP might be collapsed down to perhaps 7K BP. With the increased influx of C14 following the cataclysm (which was most assuredly an atmospheric upheaval), the current levels of C14 upon which radiocarbon dates are based [uniformitarian assumption] might have been reached by somewhere around 5K BP. The
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
User avatar
webolife
 
Posts: 2516
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Precession of Equinoxes, Dating, and Ice Ages

Unread postby Younger Dryas » Mon Feb 01, 2016 4:36 pm

Precession is a NEW and recent phenomenon - using it to date anything will never be accurate. Venus appears to be the most likely candidate for an electrical interaction sometime in the 2nd millenium BC (conventional dating). -- The Tibetian Plateau.

The Ice Age(s) are a bit of a mess that I have yet to sort out. No glaciation ever in Siberia is a problem as it is well above the Arctic Circle. They appear to have been bands of Ice that followed our magnetic field in the Northern Hemisphere - our Magnetic Pole was in Greenland. Continents were not covered in kilometers of ice. Erratics and gravel both have electrical explanations as to how and why they moved across continents.
"I decided to believe, as you might decide to take
an aspirin: It can't hurt, and you might get better."
-- Umberto Eco Foucault's Pendulum (1988)
Younger Dryas
 
Posts: 101
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2015 7:28 am
Location: Toronto ON Canada

Re: Precession of Equinoxes, Dating, and Ice Ages

Unread postby celeste » Mon Feb 01, 2016 11:08 pm

Younger Dryas wrote:Precession is a NEW and recent phenomenon

No. Have you read Hamlet's Mill? One thing that is clear, is that ancient peoples seem to have been fascinated by precession . It's hard to reconcile that with the idea that "precession is a NEW and recent phenomenon".

As it turns out, with the failure of other dating techniques, it is going to be precession that will in fact be the more reliable tool in dating events from ancient times. For example, radioactive decay rates have been found to vary as the Earth nears or recedes from the sun . The rate of precession does not.

Others may find this as interesting as I did: radioactive decay rates were found to vary with Earth-Sun distance, yet precession (which is supposed to be caused by gravitational tugs from the sun and moon), does NOT seem to vary directly with Earth-Sun distance. Why?
As a matter of fact, the moon appears to be gradually receding from the Earth, year after year. Yet we have been measuring an increase in the rate of precession for the last hundred or more years. Why should a decrease in gravitational tugs from the moon, lead to an increase in the rate of precession?
The mainstream idea of precession is wrong. Once you accept that precession is caused by the magnetic field outside the solar system, you see that precession is the best "clock" we have. Much better than length of days, or years, or months, which are all based on rotation or revolution of bodies in our current solar system configuration. Or even radiocarbon dating, which again, appears to be related to Earth-sun distance, therefore also is dependent on the current solar system configuration.
celeste
 
Posts: 811
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 7:41 pm
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona

Re: Precession of Equinoxes, Dating, and Ice Ages

Unread postby Younger Dryas » Tue Feb 02, 2016 10:43 am

celeste wrote:
Younger Dryas wrote:Precession is a NEW and recent phenomenon

No. Have you read Hamlet's Mill? One thing that is clear, is that ancient peoples seem to have been fascinated by precession . It's hard to reconcile that with the idea that "precession is a NEW and recent phenomenon".

As it turns out, with the failure of other dating techniques, it is going to be precession that will in fact be the more reliable tool in dating events from ancient times. For example, radioactive decay rates have been found to vary as the Earth nears or recedes from the sun . The rate of precession does not.

Others may find this as interesting as I did: radioactive decay rates were found to vary with Earth-Sun distance, yet precession (which is supposed to be caused by gravitational tugs from the sun and moon), does NOT seem to vary directly with Earth-Sun distance. Why?
As a matter of fact, the moon appears to be gradually receding from the Earth, year after year. Yet we have been measuring an increase in the rate of precession for the last hundred or more years. Why should a decrease in gravitational tugs from the moon, lead to an increase in the rate of precession?
The mainstream idea of precession is wrong. Once you accept that precession is caused by the magnetic field outside the solar system, you see that precession is the best "clock" we have. Much better than length of days, or years, or months, which are all based on rotation or revolution of bodies in our current solar system configuration. Or even radiocarbon dating, which again, appears to be related to Earth-sun distance, therefore also is dependent on the current solar system configuration.


I will revise my earlier statement: Precession does not apply to the era before 747 BC.

Before 685 BC, the intersection of the equatorial and the ecliptic was directly below the Pleiades. Thus the Pleiades were seen directly above the rising Sun at the spring equinox. This is attested to worldwide, and matches retrocalculations for the previous location of the Earth's rotational axis. There was no precession of the equinoxes before 747 BC. - Jno Cook

Precession is the result of an electrical interaction with our planets plasmasphere - a gyroscope - it will eventually and probably already is slowing down.

re: Hamlets Mill:
The conclusion that Saturn had stood at the North Pole is generally held by most mythologists, from worldwide sources, although it has remained inexplicable how this could be.

Giorgio de Santillana and Hertha von Dechend, in Hamlet's Mill (1969), came to the same conclusion although the authors then deny their findings because the conclusion was so unbelievable. Instead they attribute the primacy of Saturn in antiquity to a metaphor for the precession of the equinoxes, and posit this understanding and a very early Neolithic awareness of precession to be the case for all societies in the world. Anecdotally, de Santillana and von Dechend started their investigation in order to disprove Immanuel Velikovsky's claims, as described in his book Worlds in Collision (1950), of a series of catastrophic contacts between the planet Venus and Earth in 1492 BC. -Jno Cook



Its also entirely possible that our Moon is the cause of precession - the only satellite of any planet in our solar system which enters and exits its host planets plasmasphere. If you can find any mention of our moon being seen/known before the early 2nd millenium B.C you would be the first person in history to do so.
"I decided to believe, as you might decide to take
an aspirin: It can't hurt, and you might get better."
-- Umberto Eco Foucault's Pendulum (1988)
Younger Dryas
 
Posts: 101
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2015 7:28 am
Location: Toronto ON Canada

Re: Precession of Equinoxes, Dating, and Ice Ages

Unread postby Grey Cloud » Tue Feb 02, 2016 12:16 pm

Younger Dryas,
Can you provide any evidence for any of the following statements?:
Precession does not apply to the era before 747 BC.

Before 685 BC, the intersection of the equatorial and the ecliptic was directly below the Pleiades. Thus the Pleiades were seen directly above the rising Sun at the spring equinox. This is attested to worldwide, and matches retrocalculations for the previous location of the Earth's rotational axis. There was no precession of the equinoxes before 747 BC. - Jno Cook
(If that is a quote by Cook then you should make it obvious)
Precession is the result of an electrical interaction with our planets plasmasphere - a gyroscope - it will eventually and probably already is slowing down.

The conclusion that Saturn had stood at the North Pole is generally held by most mythologists, from worldwide sources, although it has remained inexplicable how this could be.

Giorgio de Santillana and Hertha von Dechend, in Hamlet's Mill (1969), came to the same conclusion although the authors then deny their findings because the conclusion was so unbelievable. Instead they attribute the primacy of Saturn in antiquity to a metaphor for the precession of the equinoxes, and posit this understanding and a very early Neolithic awareness of precession to be the case for all societies in the world. Anecdotally, de Santillana and von Dechend started their investigation in order to disprove Immanuel Velikovsky's claims, as described in his book Worlds in Collision (1950), of a series of catastrophic contacts between the planet Venus and Earth in 1492 BC. -Jno Cook
(Again, not obvous if all or some of this is Cook)
Its also entirely possible that our Moon is the cause of precession


If you can find any mention of our moon being seen/known before the early 2nd millenium B.C you would be the first person in history to do so.
There is not a lot of written material from the early 2nd millenium but what about the Sumerian Nanna and the Akkadian Sin?
If I have the least bit of knowledge
I will follow the great Way alone
and fear nothing but being sidetracked.
The great Way is simple
but people delight in complexity.
Tao Te Ching, 53.
Grey Cloud
 
Posts: 2477
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:47 am
Location: NW UK

Re: Precession of Equinoxes, Dating, and Ice Ages

Unread postby Younger Dryas » Tue Feb 02, 2016 3:14 pm

Sin is certainly a likely candidate for the moon - again there is no mention of him/her before 2100ish b.c


Walter Cruttenden, "Comparison of Precession Theories: An Argument for the Binary Model"

"It was Sir Isaac Newton, who had just developed his theories of gravity that said if the Earth did wobble it must be due to the mass of the Sun and the Moon, the only bodies considered close enough or large enough to have such an effect. But Newton's equations never did match observed precession rates."

"Consequently, the equations were substantially revised by Jean-le-Rond D'Alembert who added factors for torque and inertia, but even this effort proved a poor predictor of precession rates."

"Since then precession calculations have been continually modified and now include many factors beyond the original "lunisolar forces," including the gravitational effect of the inner and outer planets, tidal influences, effects of the 300 largest asteroids, and even a possible elliptical movement of the Earth's soft core."

"But as is apparent the calculations have become more of a 'plug' whereby inputs are gradually added or modified to fit the observation rather than being predictive or resting on solid theory."
"I decided to believe, as you might decide to take
an aspirin: It can't hurt, and you might get better."
-- Umberto Eco Foucault's Pendulum (1988)
Younger Dryas
 
Posts: 101
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2015 7:28 am
Location: Toronto ON Canada

Re: Precession of Equinoxes, Dating, and Ice Ages

Unread postby Grey Cloud » Tue Feb 02, 2016 3:46 pm

Sin is certainly a likely candidate for the moon - again there is no mention of him/her before 2100ish b.c
What about Nanna? And when do you think the Akkadians were around?

Is the rest of your post taken from Cruttenden?
If I have the least bit of knowledge
I will follow the great Way alone
and fear nothing but being sidetracked.
The great Way is simple
but people delight in complexity.
Tao Te Ching, 53.
Grey Cloud
 
Posts: 2477
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:47 am
Location: NW UK

Re: Precession of Equinoxes, Dating, and Ice Ages

Unread postby seasmith » Tue Feb 02, 2016 7:32 pm

And when do you think the Akkadians were around?

From ~2600 BC ?


What about Nanna?


It's a puzzle. I've often wondered why Inanna appears before Nanna-Sin in the early Sumerian god lists .
Maybe it's just ladies before gentlemen.

http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/amgg/list ... nannasuen/


Gobekli Tepe seems to have some mushroom lunar imagery...
https://narinnamkn.files.wordpress.com/ ... 2477_n.jpg
seasmith
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

Re: Precession of Equinoxes, Dating, and Ice Ages

Unread postby seasmith » Thu Feb 04, 2016 9:27 am

On the other hand, Nanna-Sin moon is father of both Inana-Venus and Utu-Shamash sun, so that would put the moon in the sky very early.
Also, those eastern Zagros and northern Caucasus sites like Gobekli are organically dated at 6000-8000 BC, which would put Younger Dryas on shaky ground.
seasmith
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

Re: Precession of Equinoxes, Dating, and Ice Ages

Unread postby Younger Dryas » Thu Feb 04, 2016 11:51 pm

The earliest reference to Sin in existence is estimated to be 1950bc-2050bc Suggesting that because the Akkadian culture predates this (which it certainly does!) - is akin to suggesting that Justin Beiber was worshiped by Japanese Teenagers in the early 1400'sAD because a reference to him/her was discovered in the 20th century.

Precession is a backhanded compliment: In order for our ancestors to have 'figured it out' (which they didn't until Hipparchus - by accient - 2nd century bc) it required them to have incorrectly placed earth's polar axis. Greek, Roman, Indian, Chinese and Egyptian sources unanimously agree that the shift in skies happened in 40 days between the 7th and 8th century bc - moving from Ursa Major (Big Bear) to a location in Ursa Minor (Little Bear) - equinox's moved 15 days forward - the length of year did not change but religious feast days did. There are many references from ancient sources which note that the Earth's rotational axis had at one time been located in Ursa Major and I welcome all of you to further your investigation into their observational accounts before relying on Graham Hancocks absurd speculations regarding what they may or may not have known.

From the Pyramid texts: "the king looks among the stars of The Wain (Ursa Major), to determine true north."


Re: Orion

Orion is not mentioned once in Egyptian Antiquity - not once. Nowhere.
Basing an entire theory on the alignment of a single shaft - is the wildest of speculation.
Orion and Osiris have absolutely nothing to do with each other
The stars in the belt of Orion do not even lineup to the Giza pyramid complex.
The Egyptians had almost no interest at all in the stars' (polar stars excepted)

The link Seasmith provided has incorrectly assigned the planet Jupiter ( the Shen in his hand is always the easiest indicator) with the moon for some unknown reason.

The moon was a satellite of Jupiter from what I can gather and did not make an appearance in our skies until 2349bc (Usher's chronology) - it either changed orbits or whatever was obscuring it from view (earths equitorial ring system) ceased to exist -- The Fall of Absu, Fall of Duat, Noah's Flood are all attributed to this same date, along with many many more 'Celestial' Flood Mythologies from around the world.

As far as the OP's original comments about dating - if you haven't figured out that the 'Greek Dark Ages' did not exist and that the Manetho text (original lost) were manufactured in the 19th century to establish a much older chronology for Egypt and further occult the catastrophic experiences of the peoples living in the 7th/8th century bc you would be wise to have a serious look into it.
"I decided to believe, as you might decide to take
an aspirin: It can't hurt, and you might get better."
-- Umberto Eco Foucault's Pendulum (1988)
Younger Dryas
 
Posts: 101
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2015 7:28 am
Location: Toronto ON Canada

Re: Precession of Equinoxes, Dating, and Ice Ages

Unread postby Grey Cloud » Fri Feb 05, 2016 6:56 am

Holy assertion city Batman.
If I have the least bit of knowledge
I will follow the great Way alone
and fear nothing but being sidetracked.
The great Way is simple
but people delight in complexity.
Tao Te Ching, 53.
Grey Cloud
 
Posts: 2477
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:47 am
Location: NW UK

Re: Precession of Equinoxes, Dating, and Ice Ages

Unread postby Younger Dryas » Fri Feb 05, 2016 6:26 pm

Grey Cloud wrote:Holy assertion city Batman.


Point taken. I'll tone it down.
"I decided to believe, as you might decide to take
an aspirin: It can't hurt, and you might get better."
-- Umberto Eco Foucault's Pendulum (1988)
Younger Dryas
 
Posts: 101
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2015 7:28 am
Location: Toronto ON Canada

Re: Precession of Equinoxes, Dating, and Ice Ages

Unread postby Grey Cloud » Fri Feb 05, 2016 7:10 pm

Younger Dryas wrote:
Grey Cloud wrote:Holy assertion city Batman.


Point taken. I'll tone it down.

My point was that you offer no evidence - just assertions.
You are also factually wrong on some if not all of it. E.g. Manetho was not made up in the 19th century, he is quoted by several ancient writers Eusebius, Africanus and Syncellus to name the 3 most obvious.
If I have the least bit of knowledge
I will follow the great Way alone
and fear nothing but being sidetracked.
The great Way is simple
but people delight in complexity.
Tao Te Ching, 53.
Grey Cloud
 
Posts: 2477
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:47 am
Location: NW UK

Re: Precession of Equinoxes, Dating, and Ice Ages

Unread postby Younger Dryas » Fri Feb 05, 2016 9:49 pm

Grey Cloud wrote:
Younger Dryas wrote:
Grey Cloud wrote:Holy assertion city Batman.


Point taken. I'll tone it down.

My point was that you offer no evidence - just assertions.
You are also factually wrong on some if not all of it. E.g. Manetho was not made up in the 19th century, he is quoted by several ancient writers Eusebius, Africanus and Syncellus to name the 3 most obvious.


The original text is lost. It is partially quoted by some authors in antiquity yes - but there is no source material from which to draw any definitive conclusions. What we do know is that 400-600 years were added onto Middle Eastern chronology as a result in the 19th century. This mainly pertains to the period of 1200bc - 700bc - The date of 1200bc when all cultural activity in the Middle East came to a sudden halt - would actually be 800bc.

This phantom gap in history accounts for the 'Dark Ages of Greece' in the Mediterranean - Where the Mycenian's mysteriously forget to read and write for 400 years and pick up again in 800bc Exactly where it left off in 1200bc.


P. John Crowe --- "The Revision of Ancient History"

"Archaeology, when interpreted with an open mind, has now actually proved beyond reasonable doubt that the Dark Ages did not exist, but the proof is ignored. Vested interest in the status quo has won the day. Huge amounts of public money are being spent on studying this Victorian invention, and hundreds of books written about them without resolving their historicity. Sadly, it seems no one in academia has had the courage publicly to question seriously the basic assumptions upon which Egyptian chronology, the progenitor of the Dark Ages, is founded."

You forgot to include the hundreds of Greek and Roman historians that completely disagree with the chronology you are defending 2000 years ago.
"I decided to believe, as you might decide to take
an aspirin: It can't hurt, and you might get better."
-- Umberto Eco Foucault's Pendulum (1988)
Younger Dryas
 
Posts: 101
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2015 7:28 am
Location: Toronto ON Canada

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe - Planetary Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests