China: Ancient Pyramids + Explosions: "Underground Forests in Mystery Holes of Guangxi"

originally posted by: JamesChessman
Well carbon dating is supposedly respected as accurate, for dating organic matter, but it doesn't really apply to non-organic things like stone, which basically leaves me doubtful that anyone can accurately date ancient pyramids or ancient Younger Dryas Impact sites...

As the Carbon 14 method doesn't work with non organic matter they use other elements, but the system is the same, radiometric dating,

Are you still reading the Vedas or did the interest run out when you established that the timeline is lost?

I didn't establish any thing, and I haven't started reading it yet, I am preparing the text so I can have a nice, well formatted text I can read on my small tablet. Maybe a side-effect of having done some volunteer work for the Project Gutenberg.

a reply to: ArMaP

Alright well good info, but it's been my general impression over the years that if anything is accurate at all, carbon dating has the best chance of that, whereas everything else seems less promising of accuracy. I think that's even the mainstream acknowledgment.

I didn't establish any thing, and I haven't started reading it yet, I am preparing the text so I can have a nice, well formatted text I can read on my small tablet. Maybe a side-effect of having done some volunteer work for the Project Gutenberg.

^Oh ok, earlier I thought you had established that the timeline was lost / unclear in the Vedas. I'll be interested to hear what you come across in the reading.

Are you going to skim for the best parts?

Also why exactly are you interested in reading that, just from this thread? And just the general ideas of ancient advanced civilizations and aliens, war, etc.?

originally posted by: JamesChessman
Alright well good info, but it's been my general impression over the years that if anything is accurate at all, carbon dating has the best chance of that, whereas everything else seems less promising of accuracy. I think that's even the mainstream acknowledgment.

Maybe, maybe not, and does it really make a difference?
If we are talking about a 10% margin error to date something as 10000 years old that would mean a range from 11000 to 9000. On that Wikipedia article they talk about methods with an error margin of 1.5" to 2%, which would mean a range from 9800 to 10800 years, not much relevant.

Are you going to skim for the best parts?

I intend to read it all, to get a better idea of what it says. Skimming could give me the wrong idea.

Also why exactly are you interested in reading that, just from this thread? And just the general ideas of ancient advanced civilizations and aliens, war, etc.?

I love to read, I am always reading some book, so why not read this one?

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: JamesChessman
Alright well good info, but it's been my general impression over the years that if anything is accurate at all, carbon dating has the best chance of that, whereas everything else seems less promising of accuracy. I think that's even the mainstream acknowledgment.

Maybe, maybe not, and does it really make a difference?
If we are talking about a 10% margin error to date something as 10000 years old that would mean a range from 11000 to 9000. On that Wikipedia article they talk about methods with an error margin of 1.5" to 2%, which would mean a range from 9800 to 10800 years, not much relevant.

Are you going to skim for the best parts?

I intend to read it all, to get a better idea of what it says. Skimming could give me the wrong idea.

Also why exactly are you interested in reading that, just from this thread? And just the general ideas of ancient advanced civilizations and aliens, war, etc.?

I love to read, I am always reading some book, so why not read this one?

Haha well that's awesome, I'll love to hear how the reading goes.

I've always been curious about the Vedas but I never got around to the point of deciding to read them, let alone ALL of them.

Plus like I mentioned earlier, I got the impression, back in the 90's that the Vedas were somehow impossible to read everything accurately... but it was pre-internet days and I'm not sure exactly why I got that impression.

I love to read too, though I never focused on the Vedas, and I'll look forward to hearing about it.




(Nowadays I'm extremely scattered with my life and I'm currently reading a bit about the ancient game Go.

I also enjoy reading the Book of Proverbs. I also have the Diamond Sutra on my Desktop, all my reading is usually on my Desktop.

So I have the end bit of the Diamond Sutra, the wisdom that cuts through everything because diamond is harder than everything. After that final verse, it mentions the liberation reaching all monks, and all people... and all heavenly beings / aliens, and all fighting demons. I won't quote it exactly, unless ur curious, but I thought of the conversation earlier when I was glancing at the Diamond Sutra, I keep it in the top left of my screen.)

a reply to: ArMaP

Maybe, maybe not, and does it really make a difference?
If we are talking about a 10% margin error to date something as 10000 years old that would mean a range from 11000 to 9000. On that Wikipedia article they talk about methods with an error margin of 1.5" to 2%, which would mean a range from 9800 to 10800 years, not much relevant.

Well you know what the problem is, for me:


First, there's an obvious truth that deceased organisms' bodies will decompose and leave traces of its existence. So that DOES make sense for the basic premise of carbon-dating the remains of dead organisms.

The basic premise makes sense, of somehow measuring the traces of decayed life-forms.



...But it's hard to think of ROCKS in a similar way, and it's far less convincing that scientists can accurately make sense of things made of rocks. Pyramids and ancient structures. I've read / seen complications and possible misinterpretations of attempting to date rocks because, for example, the Egypt pyramids made of limestone, it's stone made of VERY ANCIENT stuff, like billions of years old sand and shells etc. but obviously the actual pyramid stones were built sometime in the last few thousand years.

But so the matter inside the stones is dating back forever though, billions of years, and I don't think anyone can really make sense of that, really trying to date the pyramid stones in Egypt.

It's probably the big example in my mind, but I think it shows how impossible it is for anyone to realistically date something like that.

originally posted by: JamesChessman
The basic premise makes sense, of somehow measuring the traces of decayed life-forms.

What they measure is the amount of C14 still active.
Any living creature that is part of the carbon cycle has some C14 in them, and when they die they stop gathering C14, so what they do is measure the amount of radioactive C14 and compare it to the amount that would exist if it was alive. Knowing how much is left and the rate of decay of C14 they know how many years have passed since the death of that living creature.

They use the same method for rocks, so they can date the rocks in the ground and know how old the rocks and/or the ground is in a specific place.

I've read / seen complications and possible misinterpretations of attempting to date rocks because, for example, the Egypt pyramids made of limestone, it's stone made of VERY ANCIENT stuff, like billions of years old sand and shells etc. but obviously the actual pyramid stones were built sometime in the last few thousand years.

You're right, it's not possible to use any direct method to know how long ago something was made, for that they have to use indirect methods.

In the case of the pyramids they have writings that talk about the building of the pyramids and those writings can be indirectly dated because they also talk about other events that can be dated or directly by C14.

For civilizations or locations for which there aren't any other dating methods they can only use indirect methods.

a reply to: JamesChessman

That hole is a well documented but yet still to further investigate cave system... These hills look like debrie piles as a result of surface mining left over thousends of years ago..

But man made pyramids..no. Only if a pyramid is constructed with blocks like those of Giza I say yes..

a reply to: ArMaP

In the case of the pyramids they have writings that talk about the building of the pyramids and those writings can be indirectly dated because they also talk about other events that can be dated or directly by C14.

^That's news to me, I had always heard it said that... there are no records of how the pyramids were built...

a reply to: JamesChessman

Sorry, bad wording from me, what I meant by "talk about the building of the pyramids" was supposed to say exactly that, they talk about it, they do not explain how they were doing it.

originally posted by: ArMaP
a reply to: JamesChessman

Sorry, bad wording from me, what I meant by "talk about the building of the pyramids" was supposed to say exactly that, they talk about it, they do not explain how they were doing it.

Oh, well... I believe I've only heard about... ancient records of the ancient Egyptians RENOVATING the ancient structures, such as how parts of the Sphinx have been patched-up over the decades/centuries... and likewise, whatever cleaning / renovating they did in the pyramids.

The Great Pyramid is doubtful that it was actually built by the guy that it's attributed to, and rather, his name seemed a sign of possible renovation in a far corner of the interior of the Pyramid. Either that or a deliberate forgery by the team searching for a discovery, they made their own discovery, possibly.

I'm pretty sure there's really no records of any of the ancient structures being actually BUILT.

a reply to: JamesChessman

Read this.

Also, as it looks like you are not aware of it, the text below came from here.

Radiocarbon dating
Mortar was used generously in the Great Pyramid's construction. In the mixing process ashes from fires were added to the mortar, organic material that could be extracted and radiocarbon dated. A total of 46 samples of the mortar were taken in 1984 and 1995, making sure they were clearly inherent to the original structure and could not have been incorporated at a later date. The results were calibrated to 2871–2604 BC. The old wood problem is thought to be mainly responsible for the 100–300 year offset, since the age of the organic material was determined, not when it was last used. A reanalysis of the data gave a completion date for the pyramid between 2620 and 2484 BC, based on the younger samples.

In 1872 Waynman Dixon opened the lower pair of "Air-Shafts", previously closed at both ends, by chiseling holes into the walls of the Queen's Chamber. One of the objects found within was a cedar plank, which came into possession of James Grant, a friend of Dixon. After inheritance it was donated to the Museum of Aberdeen in 1946, however it had broken into pieces and was filed incorrectly. Lost in the vast museum collection, it was only rediscovered in 2020, when it was radiocarbon dated to 3341–3094 BC. Being over 500 years older than Khufu's chronological age, Abeer Eladany suggests that the wood originated from the center of a long-lived tree or had been recycled for many years prior to being deposited in the pyramid.

a reply to: ArMaP

Thanks, I didn't know all of that information.

Well re: Mortar: I don't think we can really know for sure... if it was part of the original pyramid, or not.

So the info sounds convincing except maybe the mortar was simply added at a later, unrelated time (which was how I had always heard about that mortar described, and I thought there was NO mortar in the actual original structure!). So that's an open question for me, at least, right now.




The cedar plank is likewise interesting, compelling, except that doesn't really make sense completely either.

Why in the world is the wood dated 500 yrs before Khufu, well then it must have been a special piece of wood that they passed on for 500 years... well but it's really NOT a special thing. It's simply a small chunk of wood AFAIK, I've looked at its pictures in the past IIRC, it's just a rough, natural splintered chunk.

I had always heard / seen the explanation that the wood probably came from old-time explorers, who were trying to stick wood into holes in the rock, and attempt to measure it. And a piece must have broken off.

^The explanation seems to make sense for... why there's a small chunk of broken, splintered wood, found inside.

(And it's such a naturalistic chunk that it's extremely doubtful to imagine it was actually a special thing that was passed on for 500 years. It's not carved, it's not a STATUE lol, it's not carved with a message. It's a natural chunk of wood.)




So altogether I can MOSTLY just imagine some explorers breaking their primitive measuring sticks, inside the holes of the pyramid (to create that cedar chunk).

I find it absurd to consider it a special heirloom artifact that was passed-down for 500 yrs and then sealed in the pyramid, that's ridiculous.






So the whole topic is a mess really, lol. There's still the separate topic of how exactly all these dates are really supposed to make sense together.

We can throw away the idea of the wood being an ancient heirloom, it's obviously not. It's obviously an uncarved piece of natural wood. Best explanation is probably the broken tip of some primitive explorers' measuring-sticks.

^So that's the best explanation of why the wood is there, but then that breaks all these dating estimates.

If the wood was really primitive explorers' measuring sticks... then it wasn't a goddam heirloom object, lol. In that scenario, it's most natural to assume that the explorers would probably use contemporary wood sticks (i.e. wood that was grown around the same time).





...I mean whatever, it's also possible that the wood was a 500yr-old heirloom, but I think that's an absurd situation, whether for being sealed in the pyramid, OR for the old-time explorers using a 500yr-old measuring stick. Both ideas are absurd imo.








...So really the take-away is that ALL the dating of EVERYTHING is probably just garbage.

originally posted by: JamesChessman
Well re: Mortar: I don't think we can really know for sure... if it was part of the original pyramid, or not.

So the info sounds convincing except maybe the mortar was simply added at a later, unrelated time (which was how I had always heard about that mortar described, and I thought there was NO mortar in the actual original structure!). So that's an open question for me, at least, right now.

Only if you ignore that part that says "making sure they were clearly inherent to the original structure and could not have been incorporated at a later date".

Why in the world is the wood dated 500 yrs before Khufu, well then it must have been a special piece of wood that they passed on for 500 years... well but it's really NOT a special thing. It's simply a small chunk of wood AFAIK, I've looked at its pictures in the past IIRC, it's just a rough, natural splintered chunk.

It could special because of size, shape, thickness, whatever, or it wasn't really special, just some piece of wood they had access to.
There's also the "grafitti" written by the workers that mention Khufu.

I had always heard / seen the explanation that the wood probably came from old-time explorers, who were trying to stick wood into holes in the rock, and attempt to measure it. And a piece must have broken off.

Egyptians used measuring sticks, no need to imagine "old-time explorers" to explain the presence of a piece of wood.

^The explanation seems to make sense for... why there's a small chunk of broken, splintered wood, found inside.

The wood splintered after.

(And it's such a naturalistic chunk that it's extremely doubtful to imagine it was actually a special thing that was passed on for 500 years. It's not carved, it's not a STATUE lol, it's not carved with a message. It's a natural chunk of wood.)

Where did you get that idea that it was "passed on for 500 years"?

I find it absurd to consider it a special heirloom artifact that was passed-down for 500 yrs and then sealed in the pyramid, that's ridiculous.

You are the only person I have seen mentioning that theory...

^So that's the best explanation of why the wood is there, but then that breaks all these dating estimates.

I don't think so, Egyptians used wood.

...So really the take-away is that ALL the dating of EVERYTHING is probably just garbage.

Only if you ignore what doesn't fit your preconceived ideas...

a reply to: ArMaP

It was your information that you just posted, it said the wood is dated older than the pyramid, like 500 yrs...

Being over 500 years older than Khufu's chronological age, Abeer Eladany suggests that the wood originated from the center of a long-lived tree or had been recycled for many years prior to being deposited in the pyramid.

Egyptians used measuring sticks, no need to imagine "old-time explorers" to explain the presence of a piece of wood.

Lol fine, I was only referring to explorers from a long time ago, as whoever it was exploring the pyramid & breaking their stick, apparently...

a reply to: ArMaP

Only if you ignore that part that says "making sure they were clearly inherent to the original structure and could not have been incorporated at a later date".

^Well I'll have to look into it, I didn't realize there was mortar used when the pyramid was originally built. But I could be thinking of a different ancient site...

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: JamesChessman
The basic premise makes sense, of somehow measuring the traces of decayed life-forms.

What they measure is the amount of C14 still active.
Any living creature that is part of the carbon cycle has some C14 in them, and when they die they stop gathering C14, so what they do is measure the amount of radioactive C14 and compare it to the amount that would exist if it was alive. Knowing how much is left and the rate of decay of C14 they know how many years have passed since the death of that living creature.

They use the same method for rocks, so they can date the rocks in the ground and know how old the rocks and/or the ground is in a specific place.

I've read / seen complications and possible misinterpretations of attempting to date rocks because, for example, the Egypt pyramids made of limestone, it's stone made of VERY ANCIENT stuff, like billions of years old sand and shells etc. but obviously the actual pyramid stones were built sometime in the last few thousand years.

You're right, it's not possible to use any direct method to know how long ago something was made, for that they have to use indirect methods.

In the case of the pyramids they have writings that talk about the building of the pyramids and those writings can be indirectly dated because they also talk about other events that can be dated or directly by C14.

For civilizations or locations for which there aren't any other dating methods they can only use indirect methods.

I lost clarity of whether you're saying if rocks & rock structures, are directly dated, or not. Your post kinda sounds like you're 1st saying that rocks do get dated, and then it sounds like ur saying that they don't get dated.

I guess the answer is probably "both" that rocks are sometimes dateable and sometimes not...



...But also, in real-life cases, I thought that usually... rocks usually just can't be dated...

I mean, again, the Egyptian pyramids are famous that the limestone can't be dated, correct?

originally posted by: JamesChessman
a reply to: ArMaP

Only if you ignore that part that says "making sure they were clearly inherent to the original structure and could not have been incorporated at a later date".

^Well I'll have to look into it, I didn't realize there was mortar used when the pyramid was originally built. But I could be thinking of a different ancient site...

You know what, Peru's ancient ruins are famous for not using mortar. And other places' ancient ruins. I might have just incorrectly assumed the same for Egpyt's pyramids but I have to check it out.

originally posted by: JamesChessman
It was your information that you just posted, it said the wood is dated older than the pyramid, like 500 yrs...

That was an answer to what, specifically?

originally posted by: JamesChessman
I lost clarity of whether you're saying if rocks & rock structures, are directly dated, or not. Your post kinda sounds like you're 1st saying that rocks do get dated, and then it sounds like ur saying that they don't get dated.

Rocks can be dated, but what is done with them cannot, and that applies also to things like wood.

For example, if I pick up a 2 million years old rock and break it in half, although they can date the rock, they cannot date when it was broken in two.

The same thing can happen with living creatures and C14 dating. If they find a dead animal stuffed with sand, they get a date for when the animal died and maybe even a date for the sand, but they cannot get a date for when the sand was put inside the animal. The materials can be dated directly, the actions cannot.