The 12th planet. Any one ever read it??

THENUMBER1022

THENUMBER1022

Well-Known Member
Nusky said:
look into the stoned monkey theory, basically scientists believe monkeys started to eat mushrooms, had visions of things like the wheel and decided to try to build it
Click to expand...
Oh man, that sounds more legit than any other explanation for evolution I've ever heard.
 
Jack Harer

Jack Harer

Well-Known Member
Puma Punku dates as far back as 17,000 years!!! Tsoukalos calculated that if the great pyramid was in fact built by slave labor in the time frame given by the "experts", a better than 2 ton block (many weighed more) had to have been quarried and cut, transported from 200 miles away, and set into place every 9 minutes for 29 years using the technology available to them as we know it at the time. Do YOU believe that? There is new evidence that the pyramids pre-date even the Egyptians. There has been NO evidence of the fact that the three great pyramids were ever used as funerary memorials. WHY were they built?
 
THENUMBER1022

THENUMBER1022

Well-Known Member
Yes it has always been theorized that possibly the pyramids were there long, long, long before the Egyptians. But I guess the guy with the carbon-dating kit will get the support, no matter what his little kit says. I don't see how a rock can be dated to 9,000 b.c. as some have claimed. Obviously it took millions of years for the rock to be created.
 
THENUMBER1022

THENUMBER1022

Well-Known Member
I just had a feeling your response would be somewhere in the ballpark of "yes. on a roberts oxygen truck in a can", too bad you can't see truth. ;)
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
Jack Harer said:
Puma Punku dates as far back as 17,000 years!!! Tsoukalos calculated that if the great pyramid was in fact built by slave labor in the time frame given by the "experts", a better than 2 ton block (many weighed more) had to have been quarried and cut, transported from 200 miles away, and set into place every 9 minutes for 29 years. Do YOU believe that? There is new evidence that the pyramids pre-date even the Egyptians. There has been NO evidence of the fact that the three great pyramids were ever used as funerary memorials. WHY were they built?
Click to expand...
The parts of Pumapunku that were made are rather younger ... drop a zero.

From Wikipedia:
Age
Determining the age of the Pumapunku complex has been a focus of researchers since the discovery of the Tiwanaku site. As noted by Andean specialist, Binghamton University Anthropology professor W. H. Isbell,[1] a radiocarbon date was obtained by Vranich[2] from lowermost and oldest layer of mound fill forming the Pumapunku. This layer was deposited during the first of three construction epochs and dates the initial construction of the Pumapunku at 1510 ±25 B.P. C14 (AD 440; calibrated, AD 536–600). Since the radiocarbon date came from the lowermost and oldest layer of mound fill underlying the andesite and sandstone stonework, the stonework must have been constructed sometime after 1510 ±25 B.P. C14. The excavation trenches of Vranich show that the clay, sand, and gravel fill of the Pumapunku complex lies directly on the sterile middle Pleistocene sediments. These excavation trenches also demonstrated the lack of any pre-Andean Middle Horizon cultural deposits within the area of the Tiwanaku Site adjacent to the Pumapunku complex.[2]
 
The Cryptkeeper

The Cryptkeeper

Well-Known Member
Now if we want to talk about cool ancient architecture, absolutely astounding architecture, lets talk about the Deep Sea Pyramids. =)
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
THENUMBER1022 said:
I just had a feeling your response would be somewhere in the ballpark of "yes. on a roberts oxygen truck in a can", too bad you can't see truth. ;)
Click to expand...
Had I said that, you could properly accuse me of trusting the sign.

What I described was more immediate, complete with test that it actually was oxygen. No other cryogenic paramagnetic liquids. And since it was the liquid ... I did see the actual oxygen. Phase boundaries rock. cheers 'neer

I doubt anyone can actually see truth. Truth is a boundary condition, and the asymptote is steep.
 
Jack Harer

Jack Harer

Well-Known Member
Other sources disagree. There is no way of knowing for certain. I merely pointed out that it has been dated AS FAR back as that. It could be 1700 years or 17000years old. It is most certainly far older than anything yet discovered. I do not rely on one source for my info. I take as many sources as possible and formulate my own ideas. I have read extensively about it and many other sites, I don't rely on a quick trip to wiki for anything. Here is MY quick trip to the web:

"Puma Punku is now understood to be at least 14,000 years old...which would make it the oldest essentially, right out of the stone age. "Cave men" were able to build the most sophisticated stone work the world has ever seen. 200-450 ton stones, made from Diorit, which is a material that can only be cut with diamonds. Even more impressive is the exact cuts they made in the stones, 1 cm deep, not one millimeter off from edge to edge. They also cut stone in such a perfect way so that they would be assembled like Legos, interlocking for premium strength. There are no trees around, so the crap they feed us about stones being rolled does not fit here. Some now speculate if they used some kind of metal to hold the stones together when in place. Not that the interlocking system wouldn't be enough...
"

sources:


http://weeklyworldnews.com/alien-alert/6766/puma-punku/

http://www.world-mysteries.com/mpl_6.htm

http://www.goldenageproject.org.uk/42pumapunku.html

http://weeklyworldnews.com/alien-alert/6766/puma-punku/
http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=92390
 
darkdestruction420

darkdestruction420

Well-Known Member
THENUMBER1022 said:
Yes it has always been theorized that possibly the pyramids were there long, long, long before the Egyptians. But I guess the guy with the carbon-dating kit will get the support, no matter what his little kit says. I don't see how a rock can be dated to 9,000 b.c. as some have claimed. Obviously it took millions of years for the rock to be created.
Click to expand...
from wiki-
Carbon has two stable, nonradioactive isotopes: carbon-12 (12C), and carbon-13 (13C). In addition, there are trace amounts of the unstable isotope carbon-14 (14C) on Earth. Carbon-14 has a relatively short half-life of 5730 years, meaning that the amount of carbon-14 in a sample is halved over the course of 5730 years due to radioactive decay. Carbon-14 would have long ago vanished from Earth were it not for the unremitting cosmic ray flux interactions with the Earth's atmosphere, which create more of the isotope. The neutrons resulting from the cosmic ray interactions participate in the following nuclear reaction on the atoms of nitrogen molecules (N2) in the atmosphere:
The highest rate of carbon-14 production takes place at altitudes of 9 to 15 km (30,000 to 50,000 ft), and at high geomagnetic latitudes, but the carbon-14 spreads evenly throughout the atmosphere and reacts with oxygen to form carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide also permeates the oceans, dissolving in the water. For approximate analysis it is assumed that the cosmic ray flux is constant over long periods of time; thus carbon-14 is produced at a constant rate and the proportion of radioactive to non-radioactive carbon is constant: ca. 1 part per trillion (600 billion atoms/mole). In 1958 Hessel de Vries showed that the concentration of carbon-14 in the atmosphere varies with time and locality.[4] For the most accurate work, these variations are compensated by means of calibration curves. When these curves are used, their accuracy and shape are the factors that determine the accuracy of the age obtained for a given sample.[5] 14C can also be produced at ground level at a rate of 1 x 10−4 g−1s−1, which is not considered significant enough to impact on dating without a known other source of neutrons.[6]
Plants take up atmospheric carbon dioxide by photosynthesis, and are ingested by animals, so every living thing is constantly exchanging carbon-14 with its environment as long as it lives. Once it dies, however, this exchange stops, and the amount of carbon-14 gradually decreases through radioactive beta decay with a half-life of 5,730 ± 40 years.[citation needed] Carbon-14 is stored in different amounts in different reservoirs because there is a dynamic equilibrium between 14C production and decay.[6]
Carbon-14 was discovered on February 27, 1940, by Martin Kamen and Sam Ruben at the University of California Radiation Laboratory at Berkeley
Computation of ages and dates

The number of decays per time is proportional to the current number of radioactive atoms. This is expressed by the following differential equation, where N is the number of radioactive atoms and λ is a positive number called the decay constant:
As the solution to this equation, the number of radioactive atoms N can be written as a function of time
,which describes an exponential decay over a timespan t with an initial condition of N0 radioactive atoms at t = 0. Canonically, t is 0 when the decay started. In this case, N0 is the initial number of 14C atoms when the decay started.
For radiocarbon dating a once living organism, the initial ratio of 14C atoms to the sum of all other carbon atoms at the point of the organism's death and hence the point when the decay started, is approximately the ratio in the atmosphere.
Two characteristic times can be defined:
  • mean- or average-life: mean or average time each radiocarbon atom spends in a given sample until it decays.
  • half-life: time lapsed for half the number of radiocarbon atoms in a given sample, to decay,
It can be shown that:
=
= radiocarbon mean- or average-life = 8033 years (Libby value)
=
= radiocarbon half-life = 5568 years (Libby value)Notice that dates are customarily given in years BP which implies t(BP) = –t because the time arrow for dates runs in reverse direction from the time arrow for the corresponding ages. From these considerations and the above equation, it results:
For a raw radiocarbon date:
and for a raw radiocarbon age:
After replacing values, the raw radiocarbon age becomes any of the following equivalent formulae:
using logs base e and the average life:
and
using logs base 2 and the half-life:
Wiggle matching uses the non-linear relationship between the 14C age and calendar age to match the shape of a series of closely sequentially spaced 14C dates with the 14C calibration curve.
Measurements and scales


The use of accelerator mass spectrometers can improve the sensitivity of radiocarbon dating.


Measurements are traditionally made by counting the radioactive decay of individual carbon atoms by gas proportional counting or by liquid scintillation counting. For samples of sufficient size (several grams of carbon) this method is still widely used in the 2000s. Among others, all the tree ring samples used for the calibration curves (see below) were determined by these counting techniques. Such decay counting, however, is relatively insensitive and subject to large statistical uncertainties for small samples. When there is little carbon-14 to begin with, the long radiocarbon half-life means that very few of the carbon-14 atoms will decay during the time allotted for their detection, resulting in few disintegrations per minute.
The sensitivity of the method has been greatly increased by the use of accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS). With this technique 14C atoms can be detected and counted directly vs only detecting those atoms that decay during the time interval allotted for an analysis. AMS allows dating samples containing only a few milligrams of carbon.
Raw radiocarbon ages (i.e., those not calibrated) are usually reported in "years Before Present" (BP). This is the number of radiocarbon years before 1950, based on a nominal (and assumed constant – see "calibration" below) level of carbon-14 in the atmosphere equal to the 1950 level. These raw dates are also based on a slightly-off historic value for the radiocarbon half-life. Such value is used for consistency with earlier published dates (see "Radiocarbon half-life" below). See the section on computation for the basis of the calculations.
Radiocarbon dating laboratories generally report an uncertainty for each date. For example, 3000 ± 30 BP indicates a standard deviation of 30 radiocarbon years. Traditionally this included only the statistical counting uncertainty. However, some laboratories supplied an "error multiplier" that could be multiplied by the uncertainty to account for other sources of error in the measuring process. More recently, the laboratories try to quote the overall uncertainty, which is determined from control samples of known age and verified by international intercomparison exercises.[7] In 2008, a typical uncertainty better than ±40 radiocarbon years can be expected for samples younger than 10,000 years. This, however, is only a small part of the uncertainty of the final age determination (see section Calibration below).
Samples older than the upper age-limit cannot be dated because the small number of remaining intrinsic 14C atoms will be obscured by 14C background atoms introduced into the samples while they still resided in the environment, during sample preparation, or in the detection instrument. As of 2007[update], the limiting age for a 1 milligram sample of graphite is about ten half-lives, approximately 60,000 years.[8] This age is derived from that of the calibration blanks used in an analysis, whose 14C content is assumed to be the result of contamination during processing (as a result of this, some facilities[8] will not report an age greater than 60,000 years for any sample).
A variety of sample processing and instrument-based constraints have been postulated to explain the upper age-limit. To examine instrument-based background activities in the AMS instrument of the W. M. Keck Carbon Cycle Accelerator Mass Spectrometry Laboratory of the University of California, a set of natural diamonds were dated. Natural diamond samples from different sources within rock formations with standard geological ages in excess of 100 Ma yielded14C apparent ages 64,920 ± 430 BP to 80,000 ± 1100 BP as reported in 2007.[9]
 
Jack Harer

Jack Harer

Well-Known Member
darkdestruction420 said:
from wiki-
Carbon has two stable, nonradioactive isotopes: carbon-12 (12C), and carbon-13 (13C). In addition, there are trace amounts of the unstable isotope carbon-14 (14C) on Earth. Carbon-14 has a relatively short half-life of 5730 years, meaning that the amount of carbon-14 in a sample is halved over the course of 5730 years due to radioactive decay. Carbon-14 would have long ago vanished from Earth were it not for the unremitting cosmic ray flux interactions with the Earth's atmosphere, which create more of the isotope. The neutrons resulting from the cosmic ray interactions participate in the following nuclear reaction on the atoms of nitrogen molecules (N2) in the atmosphere:
The highest rate of carbon-14 production takes place at altitudes of 9 to 15 km (30,000 to 50,000 ft), and at high geomagnetic latitudes, but the carbon-14 spreads evenly throughout the atmosphere and reacts with oxygen to form carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide also permeates the oceans, dissolving in the water. For approximate analysis it is assumed that the cosmic ray flux is constant over long periods of time; thus carbon-14 is produced at a constant rate and the proportion of radioactive to non-radioactive carbon is constant: ca. 1 part per trillion (600 billion atoms/mole). In 1958 Hessel de Vries showed that the concentration of carbon-14 in the atmosphere varies with time and locality.[4] For the most accurate work, these variations are compensated by means of calibration curves. When these curves are used, their accuracy and shape are the factors that determine the accuracy of the age obtained for a given sample.[5] 14C can also be produced at ground level at a rate of 1 x 10−4 g−1s−1, which is not considered significant enough to impact on dating without a known other source of neutrons.[6]
Plants take up atmospheric carbon dioxide by photosynthesis, and are ingested by animals, so every living thing is constantly exchanging carbon-14 with its environment as long as it lives. Once it dies, however, this exchange stops, and the amount of carbon-14 gradually decreases through radioactive beta decay with a half-life of 5,730 ± 40 years.[citation needed] Carbon-14 is stored in different amounts in different reservoirs because there is a dynamic equilibrium between 14C production and decay.[6]
Carbon-14 was discovered on February 27, 1940, by Martin Kamen and Sam Ruben at the University of California Radiation Laboratory at Berkeley
Computation of ages and dates

The number of decays per time is proportional to the current number of radioactive atoms. This is expressed by the following differential equation, where N is the number of radioactive atoms and λ is a positive number called the decay constant:
As the solution to this equation, the number of radioactive atoms N can be written as a function of time
,which describes an exponential decay over a timespan t with an initial condition of N0 radioactive atoms at t = 0. Canonically, t is 0 when the decay started. In this case, N0 is the initial number of 14C atoms when the decay started.
For radiocarbon dating a once living organism, the initial ratio of 14C atoms to the sum of all other carbon atoms at the point of the organism's death and hence the point when the decay started, is approximately the ratio in the atmosphere.
Two characteristic times can be defined:

  • mean- or average-life: mean or average time each radiocarbon atom spends in a given sample until it decays.
  • half-life: time lapsed for half the number of radiocarbon atoms in a given sample, to decay,
It can be shown that:
=
= radiocarbon mean- or average-life = 8033 years (Libby value)
=
= radiocarbon half-life = 5568 years (Libby value)Notice that dates are customarily given in years BP which implies t(BP) = –t because the time arrow for dates runs in reverse direction from the time arrow for the corresponding ages. From these considerations and the above equation, it results:
For a raw radiocarbon date:
and for a raw radiocarbon age:
After replacing values, the raw radiocarbon age becomes any of the following equivalent formulae:
using logs base e and the average life:
and
using logs base 2 and the half-life:
Wiggle matching uses the non-linear relationship between the 14C age and calendar age to match the shape of a series of closely sequentially spaced 14C dates with the 14C calibration curve.
Measurements and scales


The use of accelerator mass spectrometers can improve the sensitivity of radiocarbon dating.


Measurements are traditionally made by counting the radioactive decay of individual carbon atoms by gas proportional counting or by liquid scintillation counting. For samples of sufficient size (several grams of carbon) this method is still widely used in the 2000s. Among others, all the tree ring samples used for the calibration curves (see below) were determined by these counting techniques. Such decay counting, however, is relatively insensitive and subject to large statistical uncertainties for small samples. When there is little carbon-14 to begin with, the long radiocarbon half-life means that very few of the carbon-14 atoms will decay during the time allotted for their detection, resulting in few disintegrations per minute.
The sensitivity of the method has been greatly increased by the use of accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS). With this technique 14C atoms can be detected and counted directly vs only detecting those atoms that decay during the time interval allotted for an analysis. AMS allows dating samples containing only a few milligrams of carbon.
Raw radiocarbon ages (i.e., those not calibrated) are usually reported in "years Before Present" (BP). This is the number of radiocarbon years before 1950, based on a nominal (and assumed constant – see "calibration" below) level of carbon-14 in the atmosphere equal to the 1950 level. These raw dates are also based on a slightly-off historic value for the radiocarbon half-life. Such value is used for consistency with earlier published dates (see "Radiocarbon half-life" below). See the section on computation for the basis of the calculations.
Radiocarbon dating laboratories generally report an uncertainty for each date. For example, 3000 ± 30 BP indicates a standard deviation of 30 radiocarbon years. Traditionally this included only the statistical counting uncertainty. However, some laboratories supplied an "error multiplier" that could be multiplied by the uncertainty to account for other sources of error in the measuring process. More recently, the laboratories try to quote the overall uncertainty, which is determined from control samples of known age and verified by international intercomparison exercises.[7] In 2008, a typical uncertainty better than ±40 radiocarbon years can be expected for samples younger than 10,000 years. This, however, is only a small part of the uncertainty of the final age determination (see section Calibration below).
Samples older than the upper age-limit cannot be dated because the small number of remaining intrinsic 14C atoms will be obscured by 14C background atoms introduced into the samples while they still resided in the environment, during sample preparation, or in the detection instrument. As of 2007[update], the limiting age for a 1 milligram sample of graphite is about ten half-lives, approximately 60,000 years.[8] This age is derived from that of the calibration blanks used in an analysis, whose 14C content is assumed to be the result of contamination during processing (as a result of this, some facilities[8] will not report an age greater than 60,000 years for any sample).
A variety of sample processing and instrument-based constraints have been postulated to explain the upper age-limit. To examine instrument-based background activities in the AMS instrument of the W. M. Keck Carbon Cycle Accelerator Mass Spectrometry Laboratory of the University of California, a set of natural diamonds were dated. Natural diamond samples from different sources within rock formations with standard geological ages in excess of 100 Ma yielded14C apparent ages 64,920 ± 430 BP to 80,000 ± 1100 BP as reported in 2007.[9]
Click to expand...
I knew that.
LOL!!!
 
THENUMBER1022

THENUMBER1022

Well-Known Member
once again, you are carbon dating a rock that is millions of years old. whoever put the rock there, didn't create the rock. We aren't carbon dating a samurai sword or petrified wood, its a rock that someone reshaped and relocated. I don't think any measuring technique can be used to find when the rock was moved there, and how long ago they cut it. The technique/solution for calculating carbon dating is a long and tidious road enough in itself. I doubt its conclusiveness in regards to accuracy, in just about every aspect.

edit: just because the tested portion is 65,000bp+ whatever, doesnt mean thats how old the rock or diamond is, that just defines the age of the tested material, which could have been created after hundreds of thousands of years. The rock did not just appear in it entirety in a flash.
 
Jack Harer

Jack Harer

Well-Known Member
darkdestruction420 said:
Sure, but when you look deeper it falls apart. Thats why it gets dismissed.
Click to expand...

OK, SHOW me. I love a good debate!! Believe me I have looked WAAY deeper into this than you have any idea. I all but took up learning cuneiform. I have been to Tikal, Nazca, Giza, and Balbek (amongst many other sites). I have read everything i can get my hands on, on both sides of the argument, and to me, it's the theory that we weren't visited that falls apart.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top