Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online
0 registered (), 213 Guests and 0 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Is there anybody out there?
by True
11/20/19 02:22 AM
welcome to the newly developing glaciation period.
by paul
10/24/19 03:23 PM
Potatoes on Mars
by paul
10/24/19 02:55 PM
Fishing , baiting the hook.
by paul
10/24/19 02:43 PM
F=mv ... mv=F
by paul
10/24/19 02:37 PM
Top Posters (30 Days)
paul 4
True 1
Page 3 of 3 < 1 2 3
Topic Options
#12128 - 12/05/06 03:10 AM Re: My model of the Atom based on the work of Milo Wolf.
terrytnewzealand Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/02/06
Posts: 1031
Loc: Whangarei New Zealand
Suppose, just for example, an archeologist is digging in the Middle East. He come across a palace gate that can be dated to anywhere between 1100 BC and 700 BC. It's fairly ornate and the archeologist could claim it was proof of Solomon's rule. Is he not going to let his philosophical leaning influence his report?

Top
.
#12129 - 12/05/06 03:42 AM Re: My model of the Atom based on the work of Milo Wolf.
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
TNZ wrote:
"Is he not going to let his philosophical leaning influence his report?"

Given that she is human ... he may. Given that she is a scientist I would expect not. I would expect that she would carbon date organic materials buried with the gate, ask other scholars in her discipline to compare markings with others they have seen, look for pottery shards, etc. that would help date it. In other words ... look for supporting evidence.

And the more outrageous her proposed conclusion ... the more likely she would delay announcing it and the more thoroughly she would seek confirmation. No one wants to be embarrassed in front of their peers.

This isn't to say, as I said at the beginning, that we aren't all human with a boat-load of weaknesses. But the vast majority of the history of modern science supports the conclusion that she would become more wary the more unsettling the implications.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#12130 - 12/05/06 07:03 AM Re: My model of the Atom based on the work of Milo Wolf.
terrytnewzealand Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/02/06
Posts: 1031
Loc: Whangarei New Zealand
OK DA. You wrote:

"And the more outrageous her proposed conclusion ... the more likely she would delay announcing it and the more thoroughly she would seek confirmation."

In this particular case conclusions the evidence actually points to are considered the outrageous ones. In fact the evidence often does not support the conventional conclusions. Regarding this let's try to find some carbon dates published that support conventional conclusions re the history of Middle East and Egypt for the period between 1500BC and 800 BC. It's difficult. Let me know if you find any. Even connections between pottery shards lead to conclusions that are not exactly gleefully accepted by the majority. The peer review system lies firmly on the side of the Bible.

PS. Please keep trying re Socrates.

Top
#12131 - 12/05/06 12:38 PM Re: My model of the Atom based on the work of Milo Wolf.
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
Are you referring to something specific? Got links?

It seems to me that scientists are wary of publishing results that will embarrass one of the major religions. If that is what you mean I agree.

But with time it all seems to come out though often with little fanfare.

Still, if this is something specific, lets look into it.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#12132 - 12/05/06 08:32 PM Re: My model of the Atom based on the work of Milo Wolf.
terrytnewzealand Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/02/06
Posts: 1031
Loc: Whangarei New Zealand
DA wrote:

"It seems to me that scientists are wary of publishing results that will embarrass one of the major religions. If that is what you mean I agree."


Exactly. Although this should probably be on another thread it will give you some idea of the background:

http://www.tau.ac.il/humanities/archaeology/megiddo/sciencearticle.html

PS I can't seem to get onto science thread. I'll try again later. Is there something I should know about my mate Socrates?

Top
#12133 - 12/06/06 08:51 PM Re: My model of the Atom based on the work of Milo Wolf.
terrytnewzealand Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/02/06
Posts: 1031
Loc: Whangarei New Zealand
Ah. A link through the above site provides carbon dates. However it is no wonder they are not often publicised and can threfore be dismissed:

http://www.tau.ac.il/humanities/archaeology/megiddo/chronology_intro.html

Quote:

"Radiocarbon (14C) Results

A relatively large number of short-lived samples (e.g., seeds and olive pits) from several sites involved in the tenth-century debate have been tested. The readings support the Low Chronology.

A series of short-lived samples from Stratum VIA at Megiddo?the city long believed to have prospered in the eleventh century BCE?gave dates that cluster decades later, in the tenth century BCE. Short-lived samples from other contemporary strata in the north also provided measurements which are "lower" than the conventional dating system.

Measurement of samples from several strata which represent the Megiddo VA-IVB horizon provided dates in the 9th century BCE; they are summarized in the table below:

14C dates for late Iron IIA strata in the north Site
Dates
Hazor IX
895-805/825-790
Rosh Zayit IIa
895-835/910-840
Rehov IV
877-840
Dor 8b in Area D2
890-820
Megiddo H-5 (a phase of VA-IVB)
900-805
1005-925
Aphek X-8
832-800

Results from Tel Rehov, which were conceived as supportive of the conventional dating, in fact back the Low Chronology. The last layer at Rehov characterized by Iron IIA pottery assemblage (Stratum IV) came to an end in a big fire. Samples from this stratum gave dates in the first half of the ninth century BCE. The contemporary layer at Megiddo?that is, the stratum which closes the Iron IIA sequence?is Stratum VA-IVB.

Conclusions

To sum-up, according to the Low Chronology, strata previously dated to the second half of the eleventh century BCE, such as Megiddo VIA and Beth-shean Upper VI, should be dated to the tenth century BCE (mainly its first half). And strata dated to the 10th century BCE and associated with the United Monarchy of King Solomon, such as Megiddo VA-IVB and Hazor X, should be down dated to the first half of the ninth century BCE and associated with the Omride Dynasty of the Northern Kingdom."

Top
Page 3 of 3 < 1 2 3



Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor
Facebook

We're on Facebook
Join Our Group

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.