Can somebody inform our friend of what is about to happen to him?
You are actually challenging me on geology, astrophysics, physics, paleoastronomy, chronological dating, and much more?
DATING METHODS OF THE PAST: ISOTOPES VS. COMETS
Dr. Anatoly Fomenko:
We have cross-checked archaeological, astronomical, dendro-chronological, paleo-graphical and radiocarbon methods of dating of ancient sources and artefacts. We found them ALL to be non-independent, non-exact, statistically implausible, contradictory and inevitably viciously circular because they are based or calibrated on the same consensual chronology.
Unbelievable as it may seem, there is not a single piece of firm written evidence or artefact that could be reliably and independently dated earlier than the XI century. Classical history is firmly based on copies made in the XV-XVII centuries of 'unfortunately lost' originals.
It just happens that there is no valid irrefutable scientific proof that ALL ‘ancient’ artefacts are much older than 1000 years contrary to the self fulfilling radiocarbon dating obligingly rubber-stamped by radiocarbon labs to the prescriptions of the mainstream historians. How heartbreaking is that the oldest ORIGINAL written documents that can be reliably, irrefutably and unambiguously dated belong only to the 11th century! All dirty and worn out originals have somehow disappeared in the Very Dark Ages, as illiterate but tidy monks kept only brand new copies. Better yet, most of the very old original document of 11th-13th tell very peculiar stories completely out of line with the consensual history.
Radio-carbon method:
Very sorry about c14 radiocarbon dating methods, the poor Nobel Libby must be turning in his grave after ‘calibration’ of his method (pity that!). By ‘calibration’ on statistically non-significant number of wood samples from Egypt with ARBITRARELY suggested alleged age of 3100 B.C. the Arizona university radiocarbon team simply smuggled the consensual chronology into c14 method of dating, turning it into a sheer fallacy.
The c14 radiocarbon dating procedure runs as follows: archaeologist sends an artefact to a radiocarbon dating laboratory with his idea of the age of the object to get a to ‘scientific’ rubber-stamp. Laboratory gladly complies and makes required radio dating, confirming the date suggested by archaeologist. Everybody’s happy: lab makes good money by making an expensive test, archaeologist by reaping the laurels for his earth shattering discovery. The in-built low precision (because of sensitivity) of this method allows cooking scientifically looking results desired by the customer archaeologist. General public doesn’t realize that it was duped again.
Just try to submit to any c14 lab a sample of organic matter and ask them to date it. The lab will ask your idea of the age of the sample, then it fiddles with the lots of knobs (‘fine-tuning’) and gives you the result as you’ve ‘expected’. With c14 dating method being so mind bogglingly precise C14 labs decline making 'black box' test of any kind absolutely. Nah, they assert that because their method is SO very sensitive they must have maximum information about the sample. This much touted method often produces reliable dating of objects of organic origin with exactitude (mistakes that) of up to plus minus 1500 years, therefore it is too crude for dating of historical events in the 3000 years timeframe!
History: Fiction or Science? volume I:
http://books.google.ro/books?id=YcjFAV4WZ9MC&printsec=frontcover&dq=history+science+or+fiction&cd=2&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=history%20science%20or%20fiction&f=falsechapter 1, sections 15 and 16
Isotopic dating: science or fiction? https://web.archive.org/web/20080514235945/http://www.atenizo.org/evolution-c14-kar.htmThermochronology/geochemical analysis errors:http://tasc-creationscience.org/other/plaisted/www.cs.unc.edu/_plaisted/ce/dating2.htmlhttps://answersingenesis.org/geology/radiometric-dating/u-th-pb-dating-an-example-of-false-isochrons/https://web.archive.org/web/20110808123827/http://www.gennet.org/facts/metro14.htmlhttp://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating.html (superb documentation)
http://web.archive.org/web/20110301201543/http://www.ridgecrest.ca.us/~do_while/sage/v8i9f.htmhttp://itotd.com/articles/349/carbon-dating/http://evolutionfacts.com/Ev-V1/1evlch07a.htmhttp://evolutionfacts.com/Ev-V1/1evlch07b.htmhttp://evolutionfacts.com/Appendix/a07.htm(must read)
http://www.parentcompany.com/great_dinosaur_mistake/tgdm9.htmSpectroscopy methods errors:http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58190.msg1489346.html#msg1489346http://www.ldolphin.org/univ-age.htmlIce core dating errors:http://www.detectingdesign.com/ancientice.htmlCollapsing Tests of Time:http://grazian-archive.com/quantavolution/vol_03/chaos_creation_03.htmThe methods described above cannot be used to date anything.
The only accurate and direct method is: comets as luminous bodes MUST have limited lives.
When passing close to the sun, comets emit tails. It is assumed that the material of the tail does not return to the comet's head but is dispersed in space; consequently, the comets as luminous bodies must have a limited life. If Halley's comet has pursued its present orbit since late pre-Cambrian times, it must "have grown and lost eight million tails, which seems improbable." If comets are wasted, their number in the solar system must permanently diminish, and no comet of short period could have preserved its tail since geological times.
But as there are many luminous comets of short period, they must have been produced or acquired at some time when other members of the system, the planets and the satellites, were already in their places.
(from Worlds in Collision)
The age of the Solar System must be less than the estimated upper age of comets.
From the work Saturnian Comets:
The usual explanation for the Saturnian and Jovian families of comets is that they had originally traveled on extremely elongated or even parabolic orbits and, passing close to one of the large planets, were changed into short-period comets, traveling on ellipses—it is usual to say that they were “captured.” However, the Russian astronomer K. Vshekhsviatsky of the Kiev Observatory, one of the leading authorities on comets, has brought strong arguments to show that the comets of the solar system are very youthful bodies—only a few thousand years old—and that they originated in explosions from the planets, especially from the major planets Saturn and Jupiter or their moons.
By comparing the observed luminosity of the periodic comets on their subsequent returns, he found it failing and their masses rapidly diminishing by loss of matter to the space through which they travel; the head of the comet emits tails on each passage close to the sun and then dissipates the matter of the tails without recovery. Thus Vshekhsviatsky concluded that comets of short duration originated in the solar system, were not captured from outside of that system—a point to which the majority of astronomers still adhere—and that they came into existence by explosion from Jupiter and Saturn, and to a smaller extent by explosion from the smaller planets, like Venus and Mars.
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=282311 (full information on comets' tail dating)
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1962PASP...74..106V/0000107.000.html]1962PASP...74..106V
K. Vshekhsviatsky was the leading expert in comet astrophysics as his works clearly demonstrate this.
Two months after the discovery of the ring around Jupiter, the Soviet Union claimed joint credit for the discovery, contending that Vsekhsviatskii had predicted the ring’s existence as early as 1960 in a journal called Izvestia of the Armenian Academy of Sciences. The passage from the relevant paper is as follows:
‘The existence of active ejection processes in the Jupiter system, demonstrated by comet astronomy, gives grounds for assuming that Jupiter is encircled by comet and meteorite material in the form of a ring similar to the ring of Saturn.’
PAGE 107: Halley's comet, for example, could not exist as a comet for more than 120 revolutions.
120 x 75 = 9000 yearsHalley's Comet, official astrophysics information
15 kilometers long, 8 kilometers wide and perhaps 8 kilometers thick.
Based strictly on this data, we have the following results:
Comet Halley, as well as other comets, may have only been orbiting in its present orbit for only a few thousand years.
Comet Halley may have been in its current orbit for as little as 3,000 years (
http://creation.com/comets-and-the-age-of-the-solar-system )
That is, the age of the entire solar system cannot be more than 2,500-3,000 years old - an extraordinary agreement with the results of the facts that can be deduced from the new chronology subject.
However, as we have seen, the size of the Sun/Moon/planets/comets in the fixed flat earth context (see the proofs using the Solar ISS transit videos/Antarctica photographs) is much smaller than in the assumed heliocentric framework.
In the full fixed flat earth context, a comet has only some 20-30 meters in diameter: thus the dissipation rate of the material in a comet's tail (Halley's comet for example) does prove that Halley's comet has pursued its present orbit for only a few hundred years (another proof for the new radical chronology theory).
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1567565#msg1567565See also the Faint Young Sun Paradox:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1707290#msg1707290 (it takes into account each and every factor)
ORIGIN OF GRANITE:
Once upon a time there was granite rock. Granite is a very unique rock but at the same time is very common and plentiful. It can easily be found in mountain areas such as the Rocky Mountains of Colorado. Granite is easily identified by its hard crystalline structure and light color. The crystals are large enough to be easily seen with the eye. It has an interesting structure with a mixture of light-colored quartz and feldspar crystals, and darker crystals of mica and hornblende. Granite is solid and hard without cracks or seams, and it is very strong.
Granite has another very unique property in that it cannot be created by scientists. It is considered to be an "original" material in the Earth. When melted and allowed to harden, it does not return to the original granite crystalline structure. The new smaller crystalline material is called rhyolite. Granite cannot be made by cooling the initial molten materials. This is very important, so remember this fact.
Granite never contains fossils such as are found in sedimentary rocks. All of these properties have led many scientists to refer to granite as a creation rock, since it could not have solidified from molten material according to the evolutionary theory.
Evolution cannot explain the presence of granite in its present structure. And where is this granite? Everywhere. Granite is the bedrock shell which encloses the entire Earth. Its exact thickness is unknown, but scientists have speculated that it forms a layer about 4.35 miles (7 km) thick, and in some areas possibly 20 miles (32 km) thick. It occurs on every continent.
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/04earth4.htmhttp://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/04earth3.htmhttp://evolution-facts.org/Evolution-handbook/E-H-3a.htmhttp://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v1/n1/catastrophic-granite-formation(exceptionally documented)
Geologist's built the theory of an evolving earth on the premise that the basement granites formed naturally. They did this without having firm scientific evidence for their formation.
(29 Conference proceedings publications in 1947, 1988 and 1991 show that geologists continue to argue about the origin of granites (see 1947 "Origin of Granite", Geological Society of America, Memoir 28; 1988 "The Origin of Granites", Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, Earth Sciences, 79, parts 2-3; 1991 "Second Hutton Symposium on the Origin of Granites and Related Rocks", Brown & Chappell eds)
(30) Rhyolite is a pale rock with tiny crystals that is said to be the result of granite cooling over a long time under the earth's surface.
(31) It is assumed that granite forms very deep under the surface, because they have larger crystals than rhyolite. But rhyolite samples said to have formed 1683 feet below the surface only have tiny crystals.
(32) Experiments were conducted in the 1960's where granite was melted, then cooled slowly under conditions similar to those believed to exist deep inside the earth. The result produced a rock identical to rhyolite.
(33) Granite halos therefore show that granites formed under unnatural conditions.
(34) Geologist Andrew Snelling examined many granite outcrops and found that there was no mixing between the granite and other rocks that formed at the same time.
(35) Mixing should occur if different types of rocks formed from molten magma that cooled over millions of years. There should not be distinct boundaries between them.
http://unmaskingevolution.com/12-radiohalos.htmhttp://www.halos.com/faq-replies/icr-open-lt-2003-1-toc.htmhttp://nitishpriyadarshi.blogspot.com/2008/01/did-god-created-rocks-of-our-earth-in.htmlNo such thing as an iron core for the earth:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=39361.msg982148#msg982148By the way... you know what is coming up next: a full debate on Gauss' Easter formula applied to chronology.