Originally Posted by DJ's left nut (Post 18004276)

Man, I read an article a few years back where they tried to go into the expansion of the universe and how that expansion, when combined with the necessary changes in properties of matter and energy, actually supports the idea that time has slowed down SUBSTANTIALLY over several thousand years. Like, the speed of light was THOUSANDS of times faster then than it is now because there was so much more energy in the universe.

Essentially the argument was that decay and everything else was greater then because the levels of energy that existed in the universe at that time was substantially greater as well.

The conclusions were that radio carbon dating could be off by exponential levels IF the math has changed over the course of thousands of years due to simple entropy.

It was fascinating but just batshit enough (and beyond my baseline understanding of physics enough) that I found it quaint fodder for conversation but nothing that was going to fundamentally alter my outlook on life.

So I'm not saying that's a correct read on things, but I am saying that it's a hell of a lot more likely than not that we've overlooked something like that which would make everything we've ever thought we've known fundamentally wrong.

Originally Posted by Woogieman (Post 18004283)

If only it was capapble of dating rocks!

Originally Posted by Woogieman (Post 18004191)

[/B] Egypt got the chariot idea from the Hyksos, whom they later defeated using theri own version. Sooooo...other armies could afford the same.

Originally Posted by htismaqe (Post 18004301)

The historical records of many ancient civilizations including those in the Bible support the idea that time is compressing.

Originally Posted by htismaqe (Post 18004308)

C14 dating relies on a relationship between unstable and stable molecules like C18. Fundamentally, C14 dating assumes that our carbon-based atmosphere is at equilibrium. It's a fixed equation.

Nobody on any side believes our atmosphere is stable and not changing. C14 dating is simply flawed.

Originally Posted by Woogieman (Post 18004270)

There are a lot more valid questions than valid answers imho. I read "The Atlantis Blueprint" by Wilson & Flem-Ath when it came out in 2000, and it uncovered all (or at least compiled) all the mathematical brilliance/mystery of the Giza pyramids and how they used Fibonacci numbers (long before it was named) and celestial alignment, and their placement in relation to the earth's land mass. I haven't changed my mind a bit in 25 years...humans, if civilzation began with the Sumerians in 4000 bce at the earliest, in no way could pull off the construction of multiple pyramids in the center of the earth's land mass, using near perfect footprints, Orion algnment, the Fibonacci sequence etc. It takes a long time to accumulate that much knowledge...I wonder if we will ever find evidence of the glithed sites where the builders got it wrong and had to scrap the whole damned thing and start over!

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut (Post 18004311)

Indeed.

What we know now vs. what we knew thousands of years ago, when recorded as a percentage of what there IS to know, remains nothing more than a rounding error, IMO.

I don't think we know a damn thing.

Which is why I find it so hilarious when we shit on those from pre-recorded history.

In the words of the immortal poet, Ben Folds -- The more you know, you know you don't know shit...

Originally Posted by Woogieman (Post 18004270)

There are a lot more valid questions than valid answers imho. I read "The Atlantis Blueprint" by Wilson & Flem-Ath when it came out in 2000, and it uncovered all (or at least compiled) all the mathematical brilliance/mystery of the Giza pyramids and how they used Fibonacci numbers (long before it was named) and celestial alignment, and their placement in relation to the earth's land mass. I haven't changed my mind a bit in 25 years...humans, if civilzation began with the Sumerians in 4000 bce at the earliest, in no way could pull off the construction of multiple pyramids in the center of the earth's land mass, using near perfect footprints, Orion algnment, the Fibonacci sequence etc. It takes a long time to accumulate that much knowledge...I wonder if we will ever find evidence of the glithed sites where the builders got it wrong and had to scrap the whole damned thing and start over!

Originally Posted by GloucesterChief (Post 18004310)

New Kingdom is not the Old Kingdom. Old Kingdom, the bronze age. New Kingdom is iron age. There is a 650 year difference, two intermediate periods, and the Middle Kingdom between them.

Everyone's army in the bronze age was made of a warrior elite with bronze armor and weapons with lighter armed peasant archers, slingers, and skirmishers since the materials for making bronze were somewhat rare and expensive. Unlike later iron ore which is incredibly common.

Originally Posted by Woogieman (Post 18004314)

I only know that carbon is needed...how accurate would you say c dating could get if dating something 5,000 yrs old? 100 years? 1,000 yrs?

Originally Posted by bsp4444 (Post 18004322)

Sounds similar to what was covered in Graham Hancock's "Fingerprints of the Gods".

Originally Posted by htismaqe (Post 18004336)

There's definitely something to the lost civilization theories. Think about it this way - we thought Homer's Troy was a mythical place for what, 3 millennia before archaeologists dug up the real city?