The Sphinx was created in 10,000 BC?

Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by Ganymede, Dec 31, 2007.

  1. Ganymede Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,322
    Here's a link to an interesting Discovery Channel Documentary about the history of the Sphinx.

    To summarise the Documentary. They claim that the erosion patterns on the sphinx weren't from sand at all, but from water. Which means they were built much earlier then thought. This is just one of the many interesting points they raise.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PotS7hPQZTU
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. MetaKron Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502
    Shouldn't there be organic traces, like river silt, in the rock that the Sphinx is made of?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    There's a problem with that. The mumies that were entombed inside those pyramids were examined by scientists and their findings were that the age of the earlies mummy was about 5000 years old. Then how could the pyrimids be built befor their were kings to be buried in?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. maxzuk Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    132
    No problem. He's talking about the Sphinx not the Pyrimids.
     
  8. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    They both had the same stones cut from the same quarry in them so how could one be 5000 years old and the other 10,000 years old if they were cut from the same quarry and were worked in the same manner as to erecting them.
     
  9. maxzuk Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    132
    The stone was removed from around the Sphinx, those stones where used to build a temple in front of the Sphinx.

    In a sense, the Sphinx area was a quarry itself.
     
  10. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    And were used in building part of the pyrimids.
     
  11. DwayneD.L.Rabon Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    999
    Well i would just say that the pyrmids where built when the north was facing the equator, in other words when the north face of the pyrmids faced the sun. since that time the world has turned 90 degrees so that now the entrance to the prymids face the sun.
    The sphinks now currently faces the sun so it seems appropiate that we assume that the sphinks was built in relation to the sun, which would make the sphinks younger than the prymids. However if we assume that the pyrmids and the sphinks where built around the same time the sphinks would face the south or the nearest local star whcih would be the postion of alpha centauri, a three star system that has a unique resemblance to the giza complex and its three pyrmids, the oreintation of the alpha centauri star system finds a very simular alignment being near a replica of the three prymids placment.
    In the arrangement the sphinks becomes the most southern structure, and may be the direction of the earths rotation during the time that the prymids where constructued, the earth being much simular to the orientation of the planet Neptune.
    Oddly the depictions of the motion of stars and planets supports this oreintation of the earth, as the depictions by ancient peoples show a view of the sky that we do not see in the motion of the stars to day, but can only be exsplained by a different motion of the earth.

    DwayneD.L.Rabon
     
  12. Read-Only Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,296
    {sigh} Even more of Rabon's imagined nonsense. Dosen't this guy ever have ONE single rational thought to share?? :shrug:
     
  13. DwayneD.L.Rabon Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    999
    Well read only do you think you know your stuff on astronomy, if so then start talking.

    DwayneD.L.Rabon
     
  14. SkinWalker Archaeology / Anthropology Moderator

    Messages:
    5,874
    You'll first have to support your claim that the "world has turned 90 degrees so that now the entrance to the prymids face the sun."
     
  15. Read-Only Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,296
    I do know a bit of astronomy - but that has NOTHING to do with your silly claim that the "Earth rotated 90 degrees!" That's simply nonsense - what ever gave you that idea in the first place????
     
  16. kaneda Actual Cynic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,334
    Certainly the positions of the stars have changed since the building of the Sphinx and Pyramids. Astrology also came from Ancient Egypt and is now wrong because the positions of the stars have moved since it was thought up.

    3,000 years ago, Thuban was our "north star". Now it is Polaris and in 3,000 years time it will be Gamma Cephai.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Star
     
  17. SkinWalker Archaeology / Anthropology Moderator

    Messages:
    5,874
    There is such a thing as precession of the equinoxes, but this takes about 26,000 years to complete a full cycle. Certainly the "north star" has changed due to this effect, but there hasn't been a "90 degree" shift in the Earth's axis. That's just pseudoscience.
     
  18. Read-Only Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,296
    Just an observation: I noticed that Rabon was online and was shown posting a response to this thread - for over 30 minutes, but noting ever showed up. I suppose he finally chickened out when he realized he could not make even a single supportive statement of his "90 degree" shift claim. What a waste! :shrug:
     
  19. MetaKron Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502
    What, the same quarry can't be used 5,000 years later?
     
  20. DwayneD.L.Rabon Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    999
    Ok well as i understand it the earth axis moves approximatly 1 to 1.4 degrees per 100 years, which at one degree per 100 years gives a time frame about 9000 years ago and a 90 degree motion. (at rate of 1.4 degrees per 100 yr. it gives a motion of 126 degrees in 9000 years, and the earth should have a axis tilt of 36 degrees)
    The rate of 1.4 degrees per 100 years set to a date 5,000 years ago as in the earlier disscussion would give a motion of 70 degrees, if we take the assesment of the current earth axis tilt and combined it to the 5,000 year rate of motion the result is 70 + 23.5 = 93.5 degress. A out come of 93.5 degrees suggest that the earth has 23.5 degrees to move in precession to complete a 90 degree postion.( the 1.4 degree calculated to the 5,000 year mark gives us a match for the current earth axis tilt)
    At 1 degree per 100 years to the 5,000 year mark the earth has made a motion of 50 degrees leaving 40 degrees to complete a 90 degree motion. (not a match).

    Based on carbon dating any large disturbance that would change the constitution of earth motion, or geology would have to occur at a time frame greater than 8,000 years. defining at minimum based on a global disturbance as 80 to 112 degrees motion.

    The assumed period of a magnetic pole reversal was 13,000 years which gives a motion of 130 degrees to 182 degree, this is a very interesting calculation for the motion of the axis because it say that the earth turned 180 degrees which redefines the stablity of the axis of the earth at the equator rather than at the poles. it is also very concerning as it say that the earth is in a final phase before coming to stand still simular to Venus and Mercury.
    Here the 1 degree rate gave a vaule of 130 degrees of motion leaving 50 degrees before a 180 degree motion it is here that the true effect of the sun plays a role as the sun moves through 46 to 47 degrees 23.5 degrees is given to the axis tilt the remining 23.5 degrees is unaccounted for or in argument over earths true motion around the sun.
    assuming that the remaining 23.5 dergrees has been consumed the remainder gives 67 degrees (70) of motion in the last 5,000 years or in range approximate to the face of the prymids chamber entrance facing the sun.

    A completion of the precession cycle may be 26,000 years but change in latitude is ranged from 1 to 1.4 degrees per 100 years. (almost a subset of the motion of the emf feild?)


    DwayneD.L.Rabon
     
  21. Read-Only Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,296
    Rabon, you are one seriously confused individual.

    And this time it appears you've confused the normal wanderings of the magnetic north pole and the pole reversals with a physical tilting of the entire planet! That's pure nonsense!!

    We know, of course, that the core of the Earth is molten and that currents in it are what produce changes in our magnetic field. You, on the other hand, are the ONLY one who believes the Earth is hollow and that the temperature at the core is near absolute zero.

    Perhaps one day you will come out of your fantasy world and meet the real one. But I'm not holding my breath on THAT happening.
     
  22. DwayneD.L.Rabon Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    999
    Well Read Only the subject is the age of the sphinks, not the magnetic poles or the core of the earth.

    The reference regarding the earhts motion is to find a date by which to assign to the building of the sphinks and pyramids. It is normally assumed that stars had a large influence in the construction of the giza complex.

    The stars are a very good way of dating such structures.

    find the right postion and you have a date or accuracy to within 10 to 50 years (100).

    How far would you say the axis of the earth has tilted to change the angle of stars and sun that were orginally assigned during its construction.

    Another question might be to ask how far the stars them selves have moved since the construction of ther sphinks

    DwayneD.L.Rabon
     
  23. MetaKron Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502
    It has yet to be proven to me that it is physically possible for the core of the Earth to be anything BUT hollow. This is because of physical facts that I know of, that molten protoplanetary material contains large amounts of gases, and that gravity cancels out at the center. This is one more thing that "science" just assumes without real evidence.
     

Share This Page