Dating of events...

[Grey Cloud]

Webolife wrote:

Hence, uniformitarian assumptions about present slow gradual processes extended into the indefinite past are the "rule" of [post] modern science, which holds the evolutionary paradigm as a central dogma. This paradigm has its tentacles in every branch of science from microbiology to astronomy, so it's hard to find any solid information that has been untainted by it.

This is true of the humanities too.
Slightly off-topic but here are two recent stories about the populating of the Americas:
The voyage to America
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ ... 040308.php
This one gives 14,340 years ago based on DNA

Footprints in the ash
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic ... in_the_ash
This gives 40,000 ya based on a C14 dated footprint in volcanic ash.

To my mind, neither one is worth a plugged-nickel.

[Lloyd]

- I think reliable dating methods will be found eventually.
- Many dating methods seem to be fairly reliable for recent periods of time.
- This site http://www.godrules.net/evolutioncruncher/c06a.htm lists 20 dating methods and mentions problems with some of them. The types mentioned are:
(1) Uranium-lead dating
(2) Thorium-lead dating
(3) Lead 210 dating
(4) Helium dating
(5) Rubidium-strontium dating
(6) Potassium-argon dating
(7) Potassium-calcium dating
(8) Strata and fossil dating, as it relates to radiodating, will be briefly considered, although we will discuss rock strata dating in much more detail in chapters 12 and 14 (Fossils and Strata and Effects of the Flood).
In addition, there are three dating methods used to date ancient plant and animal remains:
(9) Radiocarbon (carbon 14) dating
(10) Amino acid decomposition dating
(11) Racemization dating
Lastly, we will briefly overview several other supposed "dating methods" which, although not expected to provide much accuracy in dating, are still used in an attempt to postulate long ages for earth’s history:
(12) Astronomical dating
(13) Paleomagnetic dating has gained prominence in the past few decades. Because this present chapter is already quite long, we planned to deal with paleomagnetic dating in a later chapter (chapter 20); but, for lack of space in this paperback, that material will be found in chapter 26 on our website.
(14) Varve dating
(15) Tree ring dating
(16) Buried forest strata dating
(17) Peat dating
(18) Reef dating
(19) Thermoluminescence dating
(20) Stalactite dating
- It looks like they skipped ice-core dating.
- An interesting statement on the site is this: "Careful laboratory tests by *H.C. Dudley revealed that external influences can very definitely affect decay rates. He CHANGED (!) the decay rates of 14 different radioisotopes by means of pressure, temperature, electric and magnetic fields, stress in monomolecular layers, etc. The implications of this are momentous, even astounding! (see *H.C. Dudley, "Radioactivity Re-Examined," Chemical and Engineering News, April 7, 1975, p. 2)."
- So decay rates are known to be influenced by electric fields. That's what's most interesting there.
- Here http://www.godrules.net/evolutioncruncher/c04.htm is another interesting paragraph:

SOLAR DRAG—This is a principle known as the "Poynting-Robertson Effect." Our sun exerts a solar drag on the small rocks and larger particles (micrometeoroids) in our solar system. This causes these particles to spiral down into the sun and be destroyed. The sun, acting like a giant vacuum cleaner, sweeps up about 100,000 tons [82,301 mt] of micrometeoroids each day. The actual process by which this occurs has been analyzed. Each particle absorbs energy from the sun and then re-radiates it in all directions. This causes a slowing down of the particle in its orbit and causes it to fall into the sun. At its present rate, our sun would have cleaned up most of the particles in less than 10,000 years, and all of it within 50,000 years.

The author probably hasn't considered an electric universe, so I suppose this argument may be irrelevant in that case.
- Here's another quote from the same page:

LUNAR GASES—Several inert gases have been found on the surface of the moon. Scientists believe that these gases came from the sun, in the form of "solar wind." Mathematical calculation reveals that, at today’s intensity of solar wind, the amount of inert gases found on the moon would be built up in 1000 to 10,000 years, —and no longer. These calculations are based on Argon 36 and Krypton 84 concentrations. Even 20,000 years ago would be far too lengthy a time. Therefore the moon could not be older than about 6000-10,000 years.

- Actually, I suppose it only shows that the moon was not subjected to the solar wind for more than ten thousand years, or that the moon's gases were removed within that time period, probably by electrial forces.

[webolife]

I notice they also skipped "speed dating". If there were a scientific application for that, we might all be feeling younger than we look!

[nick c]

Hello Webolife,

Dates back to about 5000 BP are confirmed by historical findings, but prior to that time many possible catastrophic scenarios have been offered, any or all of which could have drastically increased present rates of C-12, or increased the assimilation of C-14 from the upper atmosphere. Lower C-14 rates in the distant past, or higher C-12 rates in the recent past, say up until 5000 BP, would yield higher ages for any carboniferous artifacts or soils dated by this method.
color highlight added

see:
[url2=http://www.varchive.org/ce/c14.htm]The Pitfalls of Radiocarbon Dating [/url2]

[url2=http://www.varchive.org/ce/tc14.htm]The Testimony of Radiocarbon Dating[/url2]

It would be nice if carbon dating were reliable back to 5000 BP, but it is not. Most of ancient chronology is linked to Egyptian chronology which is considered established. For instance, an Assyrian tomb may contain an Egyptian scarab obtained in trade or plunder, the date of the scarab is 'known' giving an indication of the date of the tomb. There has actually been very little carbon dating of Egyptian artifacts, as these dates are considered 'known.' If a carbon date does not agree with the accepted chronological framework, the sample is deemed 'contaminated,' and the date is never published.
It is a catch 22, the established chronology is verified by carbon dating which is in turn verified by the established chronology. Furthermore, radiocarbon dating of an artifact that cannot be linked to Egyptian chronology cannot be measured against any absolute date, and the results of the radiocarbon test cannot be verified.


For a documentation of this catch 22 read this series of letters documenting the attempts to find out the results of some radiocarbon tests done on Egyptian artifacts:
[url2=http://www.varchive.org/cor/ash/index.htm]ASH[/url2]

An excerpt from one of the letters:

http://www.varchive.org/cor/ash/730129ma-oo.htm
Enclosed you will find a copy of a letter dated April 6, 1971, from Dr. I. E. S, Edwards, the keeper of Egyptology at the British Museum, addressed to Dr. Henry N. Michael at the University Museum, University of Pennsylvania. You will note the reference on page 2 to the samples #BM-642A and #BM-642B in which you expressed interest. I have for some time been quite curious as to why these results had not been published ii. “Radiocarbon.” In a conversation which I had last October will) Mr. Burleigh, the director of the laboratory of tire British Museum, he slated that he expected that the results would be published “shortly.” Upon further questioning, he admitted that results which deviate substantially from what is expected are often discarded and never published. It is my personal opinion that that is what happened in this case.
color highlight added

Apparently, there is no 'falsifiability' when it comes to chronology and radiocarbon dating.

Nick

[webolife]

I actually completely agree with your objection, and offered my conciliation to the mainstream to avoid overmuch controversy (and me, a poster on an EU forum...what was I thinking?!) I know that some of the early radiocarbon findings were in agreement with inflated Egyptian chronology, but other dates may be independent of the Egyptian problem and I didn't wish to make a deal of it. However, there is no question in my mind that a rapid telescoping of ages happens in the generations between the 3rd and 5th Centuries BC, such that ages of 50,000-60,000+ yrs BP are given for events that cannot be much older than, say 5000-6000+ BP. The mere fact that C-14 accounts for about 1/1000000 of the carbon budget at earth surface makes it a pretty tenuous measurement at best. Even a few % less C-14 in the past would yield over-old age dates.

[Lloyd]

- Here's another quote from Steve Smith in support of my earlier mentioned suggestion that Earth is much younger than conventionally claimed.
Jun 30, 2008 - Antarctica’s Dry Valleys

... Some observations seem to show that the glacial debris is younger in appearance than the time estimates demand, and some of the charred forests that lie buried under the ice burned up so quickly that they are carbonized in place. They look as if a lightning bolt or some other electric discharge hit them suddenly. The electrical forces that were unleashed may have actually caused the continent to freeze, the forests to burn and the animals to die and become fossilized in a short period of time.
... In every environment where isolated mountains of rock are located, anomalous “erosion” patterns are also found. The relationship between the two is unlikely to be random since it occurs in disparate locales and temperature ranges. Rather than being anomalies, these patterns should be considered signs that a single event spawned significant changes at a variety of scales in rock strata all over the world.

[Krackonis]

Dating
- Now I'll assign loose dates & motifs to each event:
1. Before 9,000 BP - before human speech & before writing - there were no Saturn motifs that I recall hearing about, it was the timeless era,
2. 9,000 BP - Saturn at the polar position was depicted as a plain circle[?],
3. 7,000 BP - Venus, ejected from Saturn, was a smoking comet circling Saturn, as the ouroboros, snake eating its own tail,
4 & 5. 6,000 BP - Venus, Mars, the polar column and the cross emanating from Venus on Saturn's face, the crescent around Saturn, provided many motifs & ability to measure time, human speech & writing developed, I guess it was during this time that the Saturn system came to about the orbit of the asteroids around the sun,
6. 5,000 BP - Jupiter replaced Saturn as the dominant god when Earth flipped over,
7. 4,500 BP - end of the Saturnian Golden Age with the Great Flood & the Ice Age,
- I'd like to see Dave's, Dwardu's and Wal's versions of the chronology to see how much agreement they have with each other. And I'd prefer to replace this one with theirs.
More Accurate Dating?
- Does anyone else have better dates to assign to these events and or other events that should be added?
- Velikovsky's chronology had Venus close to Earth at 3,500 BP and Mars close at 2,600 BP, but Dwardu et al have pushed their times back to before the Great Flood and don't consider Venus and Mars to have been actually involved in the Exodus or the Trojan War. Other than that, Velikovsky's revised chronology seems to have a lot of good info, such as reducing much of the chronology of ancient Egypt by 500 years or so etc.[/quote]


-------

I think the biggest missing point in this chronology (from Chrono's, Saturn, Meaning Time ;P) is the Venus figurines and possibly the Aluchean Handaxe's. The Venus figurines show a representation of the plasma surrounding Saturn as it entered the Earths system. (No offence to those who say Earth was always around Saturn, there is too much evidence against it, venus figurines being a big part) You have Mars below, the feet, then the Fat body of Saturn and it's torus, and above you have Uranus. Perhaps Neptune.. That's eventually became "The Great bird".

I throw in that I do really think this current timeline as presented is accurate. I prefer to garner information from Jno Cooke's site, which has great references. (http://www.saturniancosmology.org) I find his mainly uniformtarian approach to geologic dating probably incorrect, but I find his prehistoric work (100,000 - Present) to be much more plausible than some suggestions, though I do not advocate his work, but it does impressively speak for itself.

[davesmith_au]

One thing which should be remembered when talking dating and chronology, especially the recent posts full of 'interesting' dates and events, they must be taken with a huge dose of salt... That is, these are NOT dates/events proposed by EU theory or EU's Saturn hypothesis.

Whilst Jno Cook's site does credit Dwardu among others as a source for information, it is in no way reflective of EU Saturn Myth. Jno takes loads of information about which there is little or no accurate dating, and then seems to come up with the exact year of some events .

The EU approach is one of forensic investigation and as such you will likely NOT see such specific dating within EU material. Whilst everyone out there has the right to speculate I would not like to see the above dating/events misconstrued as the EU position on such matters.

Now, could someone pass the sauce, please?

Cheers, Dave Smith.

[Grey Cloud]

Re the unreliability of the various dating methods. Just how unreliable are they? Is it possible to say that e.g. C14 dates are 10 or 20 or 50% out?
Put another way, is there anything (structure, artefact, remains) for which we have a fairly reliable date? Or is all built on sand?

[seasmith]

~
GrayCloud wrote:

Carbon dating ... is there anything (structure, artefact, remains) for which we have a fairly reliable date? Or is all built on sand?

Tree Ring counts are the most material confirmations i've seen, and those only back to around 3rd millenium BC.

~

[Grey Cloud]

~
GrayCloud wrote:

Carbon dating ... is there anything (structure, artefact, remains) for which we have a fairly reliable date? Or is all built on sand?

Tree Ring counts are the most material confirmations i've seen, and those only back to around 3rd millenium BC.

~

Thanks for your reply. It looks as if my fears are to be confirmed as trees don't help so much in the dating of human affairs.
It sems to me that nearly all scientific/academic 'knowledge' is in fact built upon guesstimates, especially anything over as little as 2,500 years old.

[Krackonis]

Another throw-away comment by Plutarch was that the Greeks call the ocean 'the tears of Kronos'. The last water sign before Pisces was Cancer, c.8700 BCE.

No need to set your clocks by any of this, it's just me thinking aloud.

Well yes... But Oceanos, the Greek word did not refer to the seas. It referred to the rings around the planet that were seen in the Southern sky. (Of course, this is why all major (older) constellations are northern)

The Egyptians called it Duat. So, the tears of Chronos (The remains of the dust when Jupiter and Saturn(Kronos) interacted and left for beyond the ocean, to the underworld.) would be the rings. They left us before or during our orbital change from 360 days to 365 days. When the moon arrived in our skies.

[Krackonis]

One thing which should be remembered when talking dating and chronology, especially the recent posts full of 'interesting' dates and events, they must be taken with a huge dose of salt... That is, these are NOT dates/events proposed by EU theory or EU's Saturn hypothesis.

Whilst Jno Cook's site does credit Dwardu among others as a source for information, it is in no way reflective of EU Saturn Myth. Jno takes loads of information about which there is little or no accurate dating, and then seems to come up with the exact year of some events .

The EU approach is one of forensic investigation and as such you will likely NOT see such specific dating within EU material. Whilst everyone out there has the right to speculate I would not like to see the above dating/events misconstrued as the EU position on such matters.

Now, could someone pass the sauce, please?

Cheers, Dave Smith.

I understand what you are saying Dave, truly, and I bring them up as contentions to your (and others) theories. I consider myself an EU theorist. I think intently on this often and I apply to myself a great amount of criticism. I see some issues with his site and I do not like to apply stringent dates, but he is working backwards and much of his information is based on sound reasoning. (We should not take the dates to heart either, I can say 3114, 3110, 3100, About 3000 bc as all the same time...)

Two incidents which I hinge on are Venus Figurines and The Caduceus , both symbols show the 'formation' Saturn, Uranus, Mars, outside of contact with our planet. Seen from the side. One is glow form and the other seems to be Arc mode.

With that alone, we must agree that further and more accurate research needs to be done. I would recommend, perhaps, Jno, yourself, and many others from this board get together for a evidence analysis of all the writings and accept what we see in light of the new presented evidence. I do not mean reach consensus, since we have no authority to present something other than our views, but we should see that the works can be amalgamated and perhaps we all learn to see these issues from a different angle. There can be nothing wrong with that.

[nick c]

A note on tree rings: [url2=http://sonic.net/bristlecone/dendro.html]dendrochronology[/url2].

Principles of Dendrochronology

A principle basic to any study of the past is the principle of "uniformity in the order of nature", first proposed by James Hutton in 1785. It is commonly stated as:
The present is the key to the past.

When applying this principle to dendrochronology, it says that the variations in conditions present today must have been present in the past. This does not mean to say that the conditions are exactly the same but that similar kinds of influences affected the similar kinds of processes.

As explicitly stated in the above quote, the science of dedrochronology, as presently practiced, is governed by the principles of uniformitarianism. Any scientist, in this or other fields working under this assumption, will come to conclusions colored by this 'a priori' bias.
Under catastrophic conditions, surviving trees could form more than one ring per year, or they could skip ring forming for that year. In fact, this could happen even under uniformitarian conditions.
So this method must be taken with a "grain of salt." It is of use for comparative dating, the matching up of ring sequences between different samples of wood taken from the same region.

Nick C

[Grey Cloud]

Another throw-away comment by Plutarch was that the Greeks call the ocean 'the tears of Kronos'. The last water sign before Pisces was Cancer, c.8700 BCE.

No need to set your clocks by any of this, it's just me thinking aloud.

Well yes... But Oceanos, the Greek word did not refer to the seas. It referred to the rings around the planet that were seen in the Southern sky. (Of course, this is why all major (older) constellations are northern)

The Egyptians called it Duat. So, the tears of Chronos (The remains of the dust when Jupiter and Saturn(Kronos) interacted and left for beyond the ocean, to the underworld.) would be the rings. They left us before or during our orbital change from 360 days to 365 days. When the moon arrived in our skies.

Hi Krackonis,
My comment, which you quote, does not mention Oceanus.
As to where you get the idea that the Greek word (Okeanos/Oceanus) refers to the rings of Saturn, I'm guessing that it is the Saturn theory? Please correct me if I'm wrong (and apologies to DT if I am).

Duat is the Egyptian underworld, the equivalent of Hades, neither of these is a physical location. From your post it is unclear whether you are saying that Duat is the Egyptian equivalent of Oceanus, the rings of Saturn or the ocean. None of these are correct.

If you, or anyone else, can point me to an ancient source which supports any of the assertions made in your post I would be very grateful, not to say gobsmacked.