Cycles within cycles

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by OuttaTime

 

We have also run into difficulties getting accurate carbon dating on many places/objects due to unknown nuclear activity. Radiation greatly alters the isotopes of organic matter (dead or alive) and throws a wrench into the carbonization dating process. So something that is actually 50,000 years old, after being dosed with radiation, would show up as being 25,000 years old, or some variant thereof. In retrospect, some C14 dates that we can honestly confirm, may in fact be twice as old as we think.

That would be a detectable change. Besides C14 is limited in how far it can go back. You might want to research the limits of C14 dating and add that to your book. There are many excellent scientific texts describing the limitations of dating methods. You might want to check them out.

I was referring to how doses of radiation alter the accuracy of radio carbon dating. I know there are limits to the range of RC dating, and was merely explaining that 100% accurate dating is near impossible. As an example, radioactive dating tests before and after a nuclear event would yield 2 entirely different results.

reply to post by stereologist


In going by the link you provided:

We do know that the Maya purposely set the calendric odometer to 'roll over' at end of the Baktun cycle on the winter solstice of 2012. This date was predetermined when the first Long Count inscriptions were recorded in the 3rd century AD in the Maya lowlands'

From that I can assume that they already knew of solar and processional events of some type. But in the same article they also speak of it being linear and loosely based on the 26,000 Pliedean cycle versus the procession of the equinoxes (also a 26,000 year cycle). And also, the mention of the Grand Zodiacal cycle is also about 26,000 years, which I quoted in a seperate text box as they are two different anomalies. As far as the 65 year '1 degree' quote, I agree that it is 72 years, but I had read other pages on the web that suggested 65 years, so I wanted to include it as a possible variable.
Concerning the ELE cycle, our solar system evolves around our galaxy counterclockwise in a carousel pattern, and the likelihood of our passing through the debris laden arms are prety hit & miss, but it is likely that we have run into debris from these spirals. It is no gurantee that we hit an ELE every 63M years, but there is distinct probability that those cosmic events are always possible, and are more probable as we approach the arms. Presently we are on our way into the Saggitarius arm. Does it mean we are headed into an ELE? No, but the possibility cannot be ruled out.

reply to post by stereologist

Then you mention the fictional planet Nibiru made up by Sitchin. No such planet can exist and not have been detected by modern instruments. It's just a fake planet made up by someone that was unable to read Sumerian so he made up tall tales.

I also said that we would not know if it even exists for another 1400 years, going by his historical calculations. He claims it last passed in 200bc, so 3600 years later would put it well into 3400ad, so we would still have no idea if it exists.

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by OuttaTime

 

Real archaeologists do not see a connection between the long count calendar and precession. That tale is some fringe author claim and not backed up by what the real Mayan scholars understand about the Mayan culture.

Also, it is known that our planet usually has a 10,000 year period of warmth called the interglacial. Right now, we are about 12,000 years into this interglacial period, on it's way into another glaciation (just like clockwork).

Can you provide any evidence that a new glacial period is starting?

In another thread I was reading through a link about a Boeing whistleblower about a vast and powerful magnetic anomaly that was found at the fringes of our solar system, with the capability of temporarily shutting down the sun.

Another hoax. We know very little about magnetic effects outside of a few areas where we have sent probes. In general, the universe is as it is due to gravity. The Sun is powered by fusion and that is not due to EM. The nuclear forces weak and strong control nuclear processes.

You can check Ice Age Now for most everything you need to know about the glacial/interglacial cycles.

We know very little about magnetic effects outside of a few areas where we have sent probes.

Exactly! How can we call 'hoax' if we don't know enough about it? And gravity throughout space is not constant. It varies widely from location to location. I read about it HERE. I think I already posted this link already.

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by OuttaTime

 

s far as I've heard, there were a ton of ancient texts, scrolls, clay tablets, and other academia thousands of years ago, but the Crusades destroyed much of it. Much of what they knew back then is a mystery now. All that lost knowledge.....

This claim of lost knowledge is what?
How to make fine stone tools?
How to build large structures without a pulley?
How to hand carve stones without metal implements?

For starters, if we had ANY literature from Puma Punku, we would have been able to determine when/why/who it has come to be. Same with Tiahuanaco, Baalbek, the layers of Jericho 20 or so layers deep, and so on. We would have been able to understand HOW they constructed their cities, their religions, beliefs, technologies, rulers, astrological and medicinal studies, how they moved massive stones over many miles, enemies, allies, trade routes, geography, etc.

reply to post by OuttaTime


After a nuclear event? This is a guess isn't it?

What sort of a nuclear event are you referring to or do you think this is a matter of count radioactivity instead of measuring the ratio of C14 to all carbon?

No measurement is 100% accurate. All measurements have limitations. The study of measurements is a science in and of itself.

reply to post by OuttaTime

From that I can assume that they already knew of solar and processional events of some type.

That is an unwarranted assumption. Not sure what you mean by solar precession. Their calendar is not based on precession. The so-called end date was set when the calendar was started. That is all that is stated.

The 65 year span did not need to be included. I certainly would not include such huge mistakes.

Let's take a look at a real archaeologists discussion on the Long Count calendar.
2012: The Long Count does not end on December 21, 2012

In this blog post are many of the issues that are falsely presented by 2012 believers.
1. The long count is linear, not cyclic
2. Solstices were not important to the Mayans
3. The Mayans did not have multiple creations
4. Connecting the long count to precession is a modern construct

You also claim that we are entering arms of the galaxy. That is incorrect as well. The galaxy is not still and we are moving. Rather the entire galaxy rotates and we rotate too. The idea of cyclical extinctions has been tested and did not stand the test of time.

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by OuttaTime

 

After a nuclear event? This is a guess isn't it?

What sort of a nuclear event are you referring to or do you think this is a matter of count radioactivity instead of measuring the ratio of C14 to all carbon?

No measurement is 100% accurate. All measurements have limitations. The study of measurements is a science in and of itself.

Hah! It's a figure of speech . Radiation reconfigures the carbon content, therefore changing the result. It partially re-irridates the carbon, making it show up as more recent than it actually is since the decay anomaly was changed. For example, in Mohenjo Daro, there was some type of nuclear/radiation incident which still shows up strongly to this day. At this site, they have had huge difficulty trying to precisely date artifacts due to the radiation. It had altered the amount of carbon decay by irridation.

reply to post by OuttaTime

I also said that we would not know if it even exists for another 1400 years, going by his historical calculations. He claims it last passed in 200bc, so 3600 years later would put it well into 3400ad, so we would still have no idea if it exists.

It definitely does not exist. The proposed orbit is unstable. Sitchin was just way off the mark in making up his tall tale. He probably had no idea that such an orbit was baloney. Furthermore, we can see well out into space. An object the size of the Earth could be detected 8x the distance to Pluto. A Jupiter sized object could be detected 50x the distance to Pluto. Detailed scans of the Kuiper belt show nothing larger than a Pluto sized object and Pluto is small compared to our Moon.

Through whole sky surveys and gravitational studies it is possible to show that Nibiru does not exist.

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by OuttaTime

 

From that I can assume that they already knew of solar and processional events of some type.

That is an unwarranted assumption. Not sure what you mean by solar precession. Their calendar is not based on precession. The so-called end date was set when the calendar was started. That is all that is stated.

The 65 year span did not need to be included. I certainly would not include such huge mistakes.

Let's take a look at a real archaeologists discussion on the Long Count calendar.
2012: The Long Count does not end on December 21, 2012

In this blog post are many of the issues that are falsely presented by 2012 believers.
1. The long count is linear, not cyclic
2. Solstices were not important to the Mayans
3. The Mayans did not have multiple creations
4. Connecting the long count to precession is a modern construct

You also claim that we are entering arms of the galaxy. That is incorrect as well. The galaxy is not still and we are moving. Rather the entire galaxy rotates and we rotate too. The idea of cyclical extinctions has been tested and did not stand the test of time.

The earth is not going to blow up like clockwork on 13.0.0.0.0. That point seems as though it will be a point of transition. Changes.
Of course there will be events after 13.0.0.0.0 but will it continue to 14.0.0.0.0, 15.0.0.0.0? Or will it 'roll over' to 0.0.0.0.0 in their chronology again? I don't believe it will reset world chronology to our calendrical sense. If the spanish had not gone in and basically destroyed most of their texts, we would have a much better idea of what the Mayans calculated by. You are correct that the Maya did not have multiple creations. That is more reference to Aztec and Hopi lore. The Hopi believe we have been destroyed 3 times already and are in the 4th earth, on our way into the 5th.

add: I found the answer to my own question about the 'roll-over' HERE which better explains every bakhtun to be about 400 years (average). The table is about half way down on the right.

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by OuttaTime

 

I also said that we would not know if it even exists for another 1400 years, going by his historical calculations. He claims it last passed in 200bc, so 3600 years later would put it well into 3400ad, so we would still have no idea if it exists.

It definitely does not exist. The proposed orbit is unstable. Sitchin was just way off the mark in making up his tall tale. He probably had no idea that such an orbit was baloney. Furthermore, we can see well out into space. An object the size of the Earth could be detected 8x the distance to Pluto. A Jupiter sized object could be detected 50x the distance to Pluto. Detailed scans of the Kuiper belt show nothing larger than a Pluto sized object and Pluto is small compared to our Moon.

Through whole sky surveys and gravitational studies it is possible to show that Nibiru does not exist.

I can go along with this. I'm not very much into the Nibiru/PlanetX/Marduk scene as I can't see how they could be so close and ominous and still not show up at observatories or magnetic anomaly readings.

I've been reading Issac Newton's works and he wrote a very interesting treatise of his interpretation of Revelations based upon the knowledge then available to him. I read it online, so if you google that, it is available. He proposed that our current age would end in 2060. But he saw that as a good thing, that it would be a positive change rather than an end to all things. His perception of the world was entirely different to mine, his world was very different, England alone has changed vastly, but I retain his optimism.

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
I've been reading Issac Newton's works and he wrote a very interesting treatise of his interpretation of Revelations based upon the knowledge then available to him. I read it online, so if you google that, it is available. He proposed that our current age would end in 2060. But he saw that as a good thing, that it would be a positive change rather than an end to all things. His perception of the world was entirely different to mine, his world was very different, England alone has changed vastly, but I retain his optimism.

edit on 9-7-2011 by KilgoreTrout because: fiddling

That's pretty much how I understand it; as a transition instead of a boom. I've read assorted articles concerning the 'how' and 'why' the transition is, but I'm not real sure I believe it.

reply to post by stereologist


I forgot to address the 11,500-12,000 year solar cycle. I can only best explain it by directing you to This Link which explains it better than I could

Originally posted by OuttaTime

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
I've been reading Issac Newton's works and he wrote a very interesting treatise of his interpretation of Revelations based upon the knowledge then available to him. I read it online, so if you google that, it is available. He proposed that our current age would end in 2060. But he saw that as a good thing, that it would be a positive change rather than an end to all things. His perception of the world was entirely different to mine, his world was very different, England alone has changed vastly, but I retain his optimism.

edit on 9-7-2011 by KilgoreTrout because: fiddling

That's pretty much how I understand it; as a transition instead of a boom. I've read assorted articles concerning the 'how' and 'why' the transition is, but I'm not real sure I believe it.

I think that it is important that we take into account that things, right now, are not good. Shall we say. So although it may be a 'boom' that is not necessarily a bad thing in the greater scheme of things. As in, it is no reason for complacency.

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout

Originally posted by OuttaTime

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
I've been reading Issac Newton's works and he wrote a very interesting treatise of his interpretation of Revelations based upon the knowledge then available to him. I read it online, so if you google that, it is available. He proposed that our current age would end in 2060. But he saw that as a good thing, that it would be a positive change rather than an end to all things. His perception of the world was entirely different to mine, his world was very different, England alone has changed vastly, but I retain his optimism.

edit on 9-7-2011 by KilgoreTrout because: fiddling

That's pretty much how I understand it; as a transition instead of a boom. I've read assorted articles concerning the 'how' and 'why' the transition is, but I'm not real sure I believe it.

I think that it is important that we take into account that things, right now, are not good. Shall we say. So although it may be a 'boom' that is not necessarily a bad thing in the greater scheme of things. As in, it is no reason for complacency.

edit on 9-7-2011 by KilgoreTrout because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-7-2011 by KilgoreTrout because: (no reason given)

True. Even without the calendar/cosmological cycles, we are seeing the financial, economical, and humanitarian structures start to collapse. We have to be prepared on many different levels to survive. Even if there is no cataclysm, we are set for a societal 'wake-up call'. Good eye

reply to post by OuttaTime


let me look up Mohenjo Daro and see what you are talking about.

I found a creationist article. Are you referring to the sham articles in creationist journals?
I also found some dodgy material claiming an ancient nuclear war there. That appears to be from some Sitchinesque translations of ancient texts, i.e. made up.

Other articles from real academics make no mention of the carbon dating issue. The background radiation at the site is not elevated as claimed in these fraudulent tales.

The carbon dating in that area works just fine.

reply to post by OuttaTime

Or will it 'roll over' to 0.0.0.0.0 in their chronology again?

There is no roll over. The calendar is a linear increasing calendar with no limit just as our calendar, the Gregorian, has no limit.

The Mayans made no predictions about the end of a long count. The claims of anything associated with the date are modern inventions.

reply to post by OuttaTime


There would not be magnetic anomaly readings. Magnetism does not structure the solar system or universe. Nibiru is eliminated due to gravitational studies and whole sky surveys.

These techniques do not suggest that nothing large is out of the question. These methods simply show that anything large must be far, far away and never enter the orbits of the known planets.

reply to post by OuttaTime


Did you read the commentaries. It seems that no one in the physics forum thinks much of this claim.

A big problem for me was the claims of global floods which are known not to have happened - ever. DaVinci was one of the first to point out that a global flood probably did not happen and the evidence against has increased since then.

The write up also suggests ECDs. That has not occurred in over 200My. The only pole shift was 800Ma and took 15My to complete.

The article you referenced is a dead end. It is more baloney than substance.