Is similar architechture a reason to suspect ancient alien visits? (pyramid, strange)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So the date could be EITHER. Or it could be neither. If either date could be wrong then both dates could be wrong. Their are probably natural rock formations that have similar alignments but what would that tell us? Only that at some point in time, the alignments happened to be so.
C-14 dating puts it at 1450 CE onwards. This coincides with the creation of the Inca empire.
Our ability to 'date' things is not very accurate when long time scales are involved. Methods are often based on the radioactive decay of elements into other elements at a fixed rate. It appears that this is NOT a stable method when we are talking about rocks as has been shown by the huge variations in the dating of the Moon rocks.
Our ability to 'date' things is not very accurate when long time scales are involved. Methods are often based on the radioactive decay of elements into other elements at a fixed rate. It appears that this is NOT a stable method when we are talking about rocks as has been shown by the huge variations in the dating of the Moon rocks.
Yes, that's true but here we are not trying to date the rocks themselves.
Our ability to 'date' things is not very accurate when long time scales are involved. Methods are often based on the radioactive decay of elements into other elements at a fixed rate. It appears that this is NOT a stable method when we are talking about rocks as has been shown by the huge variations in the dating of the Moon rocks.
Right, so we may as well just make up dates! If reality is too bland, make stuff up, to create a "mystery"! Everyone can join in the fun.
P.S. The mid-15th Century isn't that long a time scale. They know when Machu Picchu was built. But you know, ... whatever...
Some of the huge rocks in these structures have been exactly fitted into tight places and are sometimes not just a standard cube-shape but have been carefully cut to shape to fit.
There are plenty of anomalous objects found where "they should not be" such as inside rocks or in old shipwrecks over the years. So something is not right in our understanding of the science of ancient civilisations, archeology, or whatever. Maybe it is that we cannot date things correctly or maybe it is because our understanding of how radioactive elements decay which has a flaw. If so, then everything which uses this or has used this as the basis for dating is up-in-the-air again.
Why has all this technology (see link below) been lost to us over the years if these ancient guys were so clever as some here suggest?
We answered your question earlier, Paul. Civilizations rise and fall. When they fall, knowledge is lost.
You know, if you'd read the links embedded in those articles on the pages you linked, you'd find that some of that stuff is no mystery. It's explained right there.
And here you go: info on those spheres (excerpt from Wiki, on Klerksdorp spheres):
Quote:
Various professional geologists agree that the Klerksdorp spheres originated as concretions, which formed in volcanic sediments, ash, or both, after they accumulated 3.0 billion years ago. Heinrich argues that the wollastonite nodules formed by the metamorphism of carbonate concretions in the presence of silica-rich fluids generated during the metamorphism of the volcanic deposits containing them into pyrophyllite. It was also argued that the hematite nodules represent pyrite concretions oxidized by weathering of near surface pyrophyllite deposits. Below the near-surface zone of weathering, which has developed in the pyrophyllite, pyrite concretions are unaffected by weathering and, thus, have not been altered to hematite. The radial internal structure of these objects is a pseudomorph after the original crystalline structure of the original carbonate or pyrite concretion.
Both Cairncross and Heinrich argue that the grooves exhibited by these concretions are natural in origin. As proposed by Cairncross, the grooves represent fine-grained laminations within which the concretions grew. The growth of the concretions within the plane of the finer-grained laminations was inhibited because of the lesser permeability and porosity of finer-grained sediments relative to the surrounding sediments. Faint internal lamina, which corresponds to exterior groove, can be seen in cut specimens. A similar process in coarser-grained sediments created the latitudinal ridges and grooves exhibited by innumerable iron oxide concretions found within the Navajo Sandstone of southern Utah called "Moqui marbles". Latitudinal grooves are also found on carbonate concretions found in Schoharie County, New York. The latitudinal ridges and grooves of the Moqui marbles are more pronounced and irregular than seen in the Klerksdorp (Ottosdal) concretions because they formed in sand that was more permeable than the fine-grained volcanic material in which the Klerksdorp (Ottosdal) concretions grew.
Very similar concretions have been found within strata, as old as 2.7 to 2.8 billion years, comprising part of the Hamersley Group of Australia. The Australian concretions and the Klerksdorp spheres are among the oldest known examples of concretions created by microbial activity during the diagenesis of sediments
The various claims that these objects are either "perfectly round" or perfect spheres is now known to be incorrect as directly observed by Heinrich. These specimens vary widely in shape, from noticeably flattened spheres to distinct disks. As illustrated by Heinrich, some of the Klerksdorp spheres are intergrown with each other, like a mass of soap bubbles.
We answered your question earlier, Paul. Civilizations rise and fall. When they fall, knowledge is lost.
You know, if you'd read the links embedded in those articles on the pages you linked, you'd find that some of that stuff is no mystery. It's explained right there.
I believe the real problem here is, we moderns live in a culture where you apply technological solutions to reduce the amount of physical labor and time needed to solve a difficult problem -- the ancients alternative to modern tech solutions was throwing a lot of bodies at the problem, investing large amounts of time, and looking for clever solutions within the bounds of their existing tech where they could find them. Reading a construction like the pyramids through a modern lens results in the construction myths about lost technologies and help from advanced alien nations, because (we wonder) how else did they do it? It's more fun to believe in those myths than to face the facts that the ancients worked very hard, spent a lot of time doing things, and were a hell of lot more clever than we given them credit for.
I agree it’s pretty weak however
Our science community has a nasty habit of selectively rejecting any new evidence that does not concur with current theory
Certainly true of the Japanese trench pyramids
Yonaguni submarine ruins
Southern most of the ryukyu islands
And here you go: info on those spheres (excerpt from Wiki, on Klerksdorp spheres):
I have to wonder if nature could have been the 'quarry expert' for many of the ancient wonders. So many people have speculated how our distant ancestors could not have milled huge blocks so perfectly. I have to wonder if nature, through expansion and contraction, could have accomplished some of that 'milling' over the centuries? As the sun heated some blocks and the darkness of shadows cooled other blocks could they have rubbed each other smooth over time?
Maybe I am off base? I have never heard of nature as a possible suspect for milling 'perfect' stones.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.