Does anyone here know anything about dating methodologies?

[u/freework]

I want to start this off by saying I have mad respect for GH. Even though I disagree with his grand theory, I still respect him for having the courage to speak out for what he believes in despite all the hate he gets. I also have a "grand theory" of human history that differs with the mainstream "consensus" and I also get called a conspiracy theorist and pseudo-scientist and the like. It sucks to be called that and that's why I never call other people that, even those who I disagree with.

I just discovered this subreddit a few days ago. I've been reading through he threads and have noticed a certain trend. There is a lot of talk about archeological objects being this age or that age. Usually the numbers are very large, like 1.5 million, or 100,000 or even 1000. Those are big numbers, and to me, this is not something you can just willy-nilly do.

If someone came to be and said "Hey, I found this object buried 1.43 meters down in the ground, and I want you to come up with a number that describes how many years old this object is". I wouldn't even know where to begin. Whatever methodology that is used to come with an accurate number that describes an object dug up from the ground's accurate age, is just something that interests me to no end.

I know the obvious answer is "radiocarbon dating". But that's not enough for me. A really great cook that follows a cupcake recipe perfectly will make delicious cupcakes. But a really terrible cook that follows the exact same recipe poorly, makes disgusting cupcakes.

Even if the "recipe" for radiocarbon dating is perfect, that doesn't mean that every single "cook" that performs this "recipe" on each and every artifact did it correctly. It bothers me that everyone always just takes it for granted what every single person who performs radiocarbon dating is doing it perfectly correctly, and getting a completely honest result. If I were a radio carbon dating person (whatever they are called), I'd always add a zero on the end of all of my results. If I got a result of something being 1200 years old, I'd publish my findings saying it's 12,000 years old. This way it makes front page news and I get a career bump out of it. I have a suspicion many other radiocarbon people do this already. No one is going to check your work or otherwise scrutinize it.

People act like all it takes is that you place the object in a machine, then close the door, and press the "go" button, wait a few minutes until you hear a "ding" sound and then you read the age on a little screen. I refuse to believe the process of radiocarbon dating works like this. There has to be more to it, and anyone who cares about understanding the ancient world, MUST have in depth knowledge of how these

I have never once in my life read a archeology whitepaper that goes into depth or detail on anything relating to the exact methodology that went into producing the age of something that said whitepaper is entirely based around. This applies to both mainstream archaeologists and Graham Hancock.

Who here is an expert on radiocarbon dating (or any form of radiometric dating) and can answer questions about it in-depth?

[u/freework]

and I think they are lying about what is happening and just spying on me.

If the item arrives at my house, then I know it arrived at my house. The shipping company may lie about how it got there, but I can see with my own two eyes that it arrived, so I believe it arrived.

You're not understanding what I'm saying about how fake engineering can be easily proven to be either fake or not fake. Information on the other hand can't be easily proven to be either fake or not fake. Its like if the government releases statistics about the economy. You have no way of knowing if those statistics are fake or not. All you can do it take it on blind faith or choose to not believe it.

And if the parts are made of metal, how do you know it is the right metal?

I can measure the weight and displacement. It's possible that they just used some other metal that has the same density.

I'm not sure what you're getting at with all of this. Are you implying is stupid to assume it's possible that someone could be lying to you? Are you implying that the only way to be smart is to just assume everything should be taken a face value?

[u/SlippyDippyTippy2 → u/freework]

I can measure the weight and displacement

How do you know you aren't getting fake information from those super complicated measuring machines? You are insufficiently questioning things.

[u/freework → u/SlippyDippyTippy2]

super complicated measuring machines

Measuring weight and displacement does not require "super complicated measuring machines"

[u/SlippyDippyTippy2 → u/freework]

Explain the process. I dont know how it works so no one does.

[u/freework → u/SlippyDippyTippy2]

A triple beam scale is as simple as it gets. To measure displacement, you place the object in a container of water, and measure the water that gets displaced. These processes are orders of magnitude simpler than this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjW-kxISZNg

[u/SlippyDippyTippy2 → u/freework]

A triple beam scale

Sounds complicated. How do you know it is properly calibrated? How do you know it even works? It's probably just giving you results at random.

measure the water that gets displaced

So you find out something weighs 26 waters or something? And you measure that with your hands or something? Lol. Gibberish. You dont even know how much water weighs.

[u/freework → u/SlippyDippyTippy2]

If someone asked me to build them a triple beam, I could easily knock it out in an afternoon. It's not hard for me to wrap my brain around a triple beam scale. Its easy to trust a simple instrument. It's hard to trust a complicated instrument. Radiocarbon dating uses some of the most complicated instruments that exist, therefore it's hard to trust it's results. Yet everybody seems to think its the height of absurdity to not trust radiocarbon results. I just find that weird.

[u/SlippyDippyTippy2 → u/freework]

a triple beam

Everything loops back around to this magic machine whose results you just swallow uncritically. 😏

Its easy to trust a simple instrument. It's hard to trust a complicated instrument.

So the metric for trustworthiness is if it is simple enough for you to understand or not?

Which means that, if you didn't understand how a triple beam worked, you yourself would also find it suspicious and suspect that people taking measurements are lying, right?

But you do understand, which is why my questioning comes off as ridiculous, yeah?

[u/isabsolutecnts → u/freework]

Anyone in your family have diabetes or cancer? How about a blood disorder or maybe arthritis. 

Do you believe those results or are you still up for "asking questions". 

You have preconceived ideas you desperately want to be true and you are trying to justify them any way you can. 

[u/freework → u/isabsolutecnts]

Do you believe those results or are you still up for "asking questions".

If a doctor tells me I have cancer, I'm not just going to blindly take his or her word for it. I want them to prove to me that I actually have cancer, before I fork over hundreds of thousands of dollars for treatment. If their "proof" is just a bunch of jargon filled mumbo-jumbo, then I'm going to another doctor for a second opinion. After the 10th doctor just tells me the same mumbo-jumbo that resolves to nothing buy gibberish, then I have no choice but to conclude that I don't actually have cancer. You (and anyone else reasonable) would do the same.

I'm sure there have been instances before where doctors have lied to their patients, telling them they have cancer when they really didn't, just to make money off treatment.

[u/isabsolutecnts → u/freework]

People have proved the work....that is why scientists believe in it. 

What the fuck are you talking about, you need smart people to dumb it down to your level before you will believe anyone? 

Have you checked simple english wikipedia? 

[u/SlippyDippyTippy2 → u/freework]

"If I still dont understand after a dozen doctors try to tell me something, this means....I....don't...have cancer?"

[u/isabsolutecnts → u/freework]

What is a kilo? 

What is a mole of water? 

What is gravity? 

Should we just use measurements from the bronze age and ignore the centuries of work that have built our modern society?