Taj Mahal joins 7 Wonders of the World

[Guest dada_rocks]

Re: Taj Mahal was built and owned by Hindus

Point to make here is 30 years error is reported when the mesurement data is 3000 and as u have yoruself rightly explained to yoda error in mesaurement gets bigger and bigger at the higher end of decay spectrum at lower end it's more accurate. So it could be concluded that when final result is 1000 years error will be most certainly less than 30 years. If it makes u happy make it more say 100 yrs but to insinuate that in the measurement result of 1000 years 500 years error [that's what u will have to believe if u want to bring date to the priod of Shahjehan] is what carbon dating gives is basically saying carbon dating is bullcrap. Had that been the case it would long have been dropped from the lexicon of scientific parlour.

Are you telling me that error bars are solely a function of the age of a sample? Do you want me to pull up something which has greater errors bars than 30 years for a sample less than 3000 years old? Are you trying to tell me that anything which is X years old will have the same error bars?

Not untill you prove that the sample was tampered with.

Scientific samples are obtained in transparency and according to well established scientific procedures. The above was not and hence is not a scientific sample and any results coming out of it are at best dubious.

Dada has taken care of this .... Thx DR.

Dada has taken care of jack$hit.

Show me the existence of a piece of paper from Moghul records that show the design implementation and other such mundane stuff that acompanies such a Grand scale proj.

Show me the existence of a piece of paper from ancient records where the design implementation and other such mundane stuff that accompanies grand projects like the Konark temple in Orissa or many other similar famous temples.

Even in that paragraph it says there are other factors there certainly is a variation in error bar and there is calibration technique available for the same. But error to the scale which u would like people to believeis unheard of. heck I don't even need to gogle I can say it with confidence that no data would be accepted by scienitifc comunity where error is in the range of 50% and unfortunately that's what u will need here to prove your point. Show me any sample I repeat any sample i repeat again any sample where the age was measured as 1000 years and error was reported as 500 years. NO meandering lecture no dilly dallying please you know what is being asked here. I could not be more clear. So go ahead go bonkers on google show me this I will change my view rigt here and right now. Intellectual dishonesty is not my forte Konark temple data may very well would have gotten razed by 1000 years of islamic cornucopia if they can bulldoze big universities piece of paper is nothign what excuse shahjehan and company have after all other data is available from the same era. Heck his court documents are availbale. British who followed islamic rulers were never in the business of razing things just for the sake of it. About transparency: I am yet to hear your view on why govt of Idnia is so secretive we do all kind of dating on other monuments why is tajmahal sacrosanct. Another reason to believ there is some uncomfortale whihc is being guarded religiously here. I won't fault the guy for stealing the sample because there was no other way. FOOTNOTE: Libby vs Cambridge values Carbon dating was developed by a team led by Willard Libby. Originally a carbon-14 half-life of 5568?30 years was used, which is now known as the Libby half-life. Later a more accurate figure of 5730?40 years was determined, which is known as the Cambridge half-life. However laboratories continue to use the Libby figure to avoid inconsistencies when comparing raw dates and when using calibration curves to obtain calendrical dates. Error creeps up from error in half life that's the major error the other factors are well calibrated and hence do not contribute much error particularly in the range of known historial period.

[The Outsider]

Re: Taj Mahal was built and owned by Hindus

I can say it with confidence that no data would be accepted by scienitifc comunity where error is in the range of 50%

And where does it say that the results are well accepted in the scientific community. Heck, the guy who analyzed the sample is sceptical about the results. Doesn't that say it all on the subject?

Konark temple data may very well would have gotten razed by 1000 years of islamic cornucopia

Naah, I think Konark temple was built by Martians because there are no design plans available for it.

Error creeps up from error in half life that's the major error the other factors are well calibrated and hence do not contribute much error particularly in the range of known historial period.

Are you saying the quality of the sample under analysis has nothing to do with the error bars?

[Anakin]

Re: Taj Mahal was built and owned by Hindus The norm for carbon dating is supposed to take the lower value ie older age rather than the higher value. And the guy isn't skeptical about the carbon dating result, but he said it's inconclusive meaning not enough evidence, which is the right approach because you need to have more samples and more tests. But unless the test was seriously botched up or the sample was fake, the result should be quite close if anymore tests are done in the future.

[The Outsider]

Re: Taj Mahal was built and owned by Hindus

The norm for carbon dating is supposed to take the lower value ie older age rather than the higher value.

Thats not true at all. Like any other scientific/statistical analysis the norm is to take the value +/- the error bars. Care to show me where you read this norm about Carbon dating?

And the guy isn't skeptical about the carbon dating result, but he said it's inconclusive meaning not enough evidence, which is the right approach because you need to have more samples and more tests.

Let me quote him again:

"The piece that Marvin provided for carbon dating did suggest it was older than the 1600's. But this does not prove anything conclusively. Most academics have a patronizing attitude towards radiocarbon dating and scientists in this field. Archaeologists, for instance, will include radiocarbon dating results only if it supports their own theories."

So where does he say that the inconclusive result is not due to limitations of Carbon dating.

But unless the test was seriously botched up or the sample was fake, the result should be quite close if anymore tests are done in the future.

On the basis of ONE test from a stolen sample procured in a completely unscientific manner you seem pretty confident!!

[Guest dada_rocks]

Re: Taj Mahal was built and owned by Hindus Man you are master of evasion. So you started with views of carbon dating result are not accurate so the question was raised on the whole concept of carbon dating. I produced you data corroboratig nothing is accurate it's all about what kind of error in the mesasurement is produced or whether it's acceptable in that particualr field or not. We saw that other than life-time error, errors might also creep in due to few other reasons and also saw that these other paramters induced variations are calibrable and the main culprit here is error in life-time others are lesser culprits. We also saw that life-time error hovers in the range of 30-40 yrs. So now the question arises assuming the lab which tested knew what carbon dating is and used all the available tools of calibration; in no cirumstances error could go upto 500 years when the mesurement result is 1000 years. Only possibility of this happening is when the lab concerned had been a fraud and didn't know what they were doing which they are not. It's widely known lab and hence their professional competence can't be questioned. Then u claimed u can show error bar where much greater errors have been reported and I asked you to show me one where anyone has reported 50% error in carbon dating where subject being dated is in documented history period. All I hear is another round of evasive this and that. You know what your problem is you love to say nothing and claim everything. Same theme plays in every debate. :wall: Nothing is lost yet corroborate your claim with data I will buy your point. You got nothing other than dilly-dallying. I think carbon dating bogey is shattered to pieces. It's not going anywhere other than vacuuos posturing pick some other point from the list.

[Anakin]

Re: Taj Mahal was built and owned by Hindus

Thats not true at all. Like any other scientific/statistical analysis the norm is to take the value +/- the error bars. Care to show me where you read this norm about Carbon dating?

Saw it either on discovery or PBS or Nova when they were arguing about the age of some scroll, when they said that's the norm they use to talk about or document age after doing carbon dating.

Let me quote him again: "The piece that Marvin provided for carbon dating did suggest it was older than the 1600's. But this does not prove anything conclusively. Most academics have a patronizing attitude towards radiocarbon dating and scientists in this field. Archaeologists, for instance, will include radiocarbon dating results only if it supports their own theories." So where does he say that the inconclusive result is not due to limitations of Carbon dating.

Back to pedantry He is admitting that the test agrees with the claim, but then he's saying it doesn't prove anything conclusively. And his claim is also true the other way around like I said in some previous post, ie they'll claim it's not accurate when it doesn't agree with their theory, just like what you're doing in case you didn't notice.

On the basis of ONE test from a stolen sample procured in a completely unscientific manner you seem pretty confident!!

As I said unless the test was botched up or if it was a fake sample. If the sample is genuine and test was done professionally, what's your argument? BTW I'm sure you haven't noticed it yet, but the idiot ignorant dude was CORRECT about the carbon dating test, when you haven't showed anything concrete in the contrary rather than someone saying it's not conclusive.

[Guest dada_rocks]

Re: Taj Mahal was built and owned by Hindus

The norm for carbon dating is supposed to take the lower value ie older age rather than the higher value. And the guy isn't skeptical about the carbon dating result' date=' but he said it's inconclusive meaning not enough evidence, which is the right approach because you need to have more samples and more tests. But unless the test was seriously botched up or the sample was fake, the result should be quite close if anymore tests are done in the future.[/quote'] See now this is credible point being raised here you got to test more than one sample to be sure. If more samples are not available then you got to do more than one measurements on the same sample provided the test is not destrutive in that case needless to say u can't really use the same sample for more than one measurement. Fortunately this is not the case here you can measure the C14 content in the same sample more than once.

[Anakin]

Re: Taj Mahal was built and owned by Hindus

ok' date=' this is my first post and i dont usually write. but when misinformed ppl call things like P N Oak's fantasies "facts" its just funny and sad. you guys are looking at the stuff he said and saying "wow, it makes sense. these are facts because he is saying so." have u ever wondered that maybe half of the stuff that he presents as facts are simply wrong? dont believe me? go and research this on wikipedia. people love conspriacy theories because the idea that there can be a deeper truth and that there is a cover-up sounds like a mystery novel plot and it excites them (like the stupid world trade center conspiracy movie, loose change).[/quote'] I'll play the devil's (literally) advocate Please explain why so little debris in pentagon or the crashed plane (also the absence of black box). Would be interesting to get some explanations from the resident physics experts here. The complete demolition of the 3rd building near the twin towers, their own demolition look quite amazing and suspicious as well, not to mention the sounds of explosions heard by many people and caught on camera, including firefighters. Did you know Rummy talked about missing around 2.5 Trillion dollars by pentagon and military industry on the 10th and possible investigations and guess what happened to the documents for that

[The Outsider]

Re: Taj Mahal was built and owned by Hindus

So you started with views of carbon dating result are not accurate so the question was raised on the whole concept of carbon dating.

You have serious comprehension problems as I noted earlier as well. You claim to be a scientist and have no problems in accepting a stolen piece of wood from the Taj Mahal on which one Carbon dating test was conducted 30 years back when the person conducting the test said it is inconclusive as "scientific" evidence!!! :wall: But anyhow, lets get right to the point. Are error bars independent of the quality of the sample collected? Answer this and lets move forward.

Saw it either on discovery or PBS or Nova when they were arguing about the age of some scroll, when they said that's the norm they use to talk about or document age after doing carbon dating.

Do a google on carbon dating error bars or something similar. All scientific papers are presented as +/- like in any other field.

He is admitting that the test agrees with the claim, but then he's saying it doesn't prove anything conclusively.

And yet Mr. Oak and you are claiming that it does conclusively prove that the Taj Mahal is a Hindu temple?

And his claim is also true the other way around like I said in some previous post, ie they'll claim it's not accurate when it doesn't agree with their theory, just like what you're doing in case you didn't notice.

Errr... no. Its Mr. Oak and you who are doing it. I am saying that since its inconclusive move on to the next point. You are the one claiming it to be "proof" even though its termed inconclusive by the guy who conducted the test.

If the sample is genuine and test was done professionally, what's your argument?

A stolen sample taken not in accordance with any norm of data collection of Carbon dating is professional??

BTW I'm sure you haven't noticed it yet, but the idiot ignorant dude was CORRECT about the carbon dating test, when you haven't showed anything concrete in the contrary rather than someone saying it's not conclusive

How someone can be correct and inconclusive at the same time is beyond me!! :wall:

If more samples are not available then you got to do more than one measurements on the same sample provided the test is not destrutive in that case needless to say u can't really use the same sample for more than one measurement. Fortunately this is not the case here you can measure the C14 content in the same sample more than once.

And I suppose if you keep on making measurements on the same sample you will eliminate all errors at some point? Let me ask you this again: Are error bars independent of the quality of the sample collected?

[Anakin]

Re: Taj Mahal was built and owned by Hindus :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: Show me where I said that test is conclusive, thanks in advance. Just because the sample is stolen doesn't mean it's fake. Time to open up the dictionary. Again, I'm talking about the norm, people usually just say it's xx years old, not xx years old +-z years, even though when it's in the scientific paper.

How someone can be correct and inconclusive at the same time is beyond me!!

Shouldn't be unless you're trying to be dumb. That test shows Oak correct, but that test alone is not enough. Since you're expert with carbon dating, it should be quite easy to grasp. They do quite a few number of tests, not just one single test even when the sample is the purest. Let me know why BTW since you're missing two key points everytime, let me repeat. If the sample is genuine (stealing it doesn't make it "impure") and the test was done professionally and correctly (again, the sample doesn't have to be "pure" to do that), what's your argument against it.

[Guest dada_rocks]

Re: Taj Mahal was built and owned by Hindus How many times i have to answer the same freaking question. (1) there are two kind of errors one mesurement error in the same sample for which more than one measurement needs to be done. Another is variation of result from sample to sample Let me put the rest of the part in bold for you. IN no case I repeat no case anyone has reported 50% variation in measuremetn from sample to sample . If you think otherwise produce one such data. Till you do that you are indulging in all familiar evasive exercise (2) yes there is ethical side of sample collection then at the same time there is ethical side of suppression of sample collection by govt of india. I would have faulted this method had the open door policy been already in place and still this guy had indulged in this . IN all probability the guy who did test is not committing due to unofficial nature of the sample there is no doubt whatsoever with cerdibility of carbon-dating measurement which was your initial beef although it's heartening to see you have toned down on that. So will I get to see sample to sample variation of 50% data this time or there will be all familiar another round of evasive tactics employed. Yes forgot to anser ur question if u keep doign measurement on same sample u will certainly have an idea of the measurement error involved. Yes it will not fix the sample to sample variation error but then inthe case whee multiple samples are not availbale worst case conclusion can be drawn and there are enough data available for carbon dating done on different samples and your job is now to produce that there was 50% variation reported anywhere in any case.

[Guest dada_rocks]

Re: Taj Mahal was built and owned by Hindus Avi u are right; norm is to take data suggesting older age reason being atmospheric carbon getting absorbed adsrobed and suggesting lesser age than it should be .. :wtg: I am eagerly waiting for some 50% variation data be it from sample to sample or from measurement to measurement on the same sample..any combination will do.. Till this happens we might as well put this topic on hold and move to something else. waise maze ke liye debate karna hai tab to koi baat hi nahin we can just close our eyes and go bonkers on keyboard. :lmao:

[Guest dada_rocks]

Re: Taj Mahal was built and owned by Hindus Same theme plays in more or less every debate with this gentleman I have noticed. he will claim something u corner him to substantiate that he will run away or indulge into meandering babble... I don't think what I am asking for is ambiguous in any way shape or form but yet somehow he doesn't get it. :wall:

[Zooter]

Re: Taj Mahal was built and owned by Hindus Don't know what to make of this Oak guy or his report on the Taj Mahal. People shouldn't lose sight of the overall picture though. Hindus should recognize that the Taj Mahal may just be a Muslim monument and not some older Hindu Temple, but Muslims should also be aware of the fact that the Muslim stragegy to conquer the Subcontinent was to destroy older buildings where they existed and use those dismantled stones/bricks to rebuild newer Muslims buildings. This has happened EVERYWHERE in the world. When the Romans built their huge cistern in Constantinople, they destroyed the old Temple and used the stones that had figuers of Medusa and other mythical "Gods/Goddesses" as the base (proving a political point) of the new colums that comprised the Cistern. Turkish Muslims destoryed the old Church in Istanbul and built Hagia Sofia right on top of it. Even when the Muslim population of a place like Ahmedabad, Gujarat was paltry in comparion to the Hindu population, Muslim mosques sprung up like hot cakes everywhere in the city outnumbering the Hindu temples. Where did the Temples go?? And why would a smaller number of Muslims need 2, 3, 4 times (whatever it was) the number of religious places as Hindus? Simple, the older Hindu temples were destroyed and on top of them a mosque was built whether it was required or not. Israel does the same thing even today. The army will enter an occupied zone (or a piece of land that therefore becomes 'occupied territory'), destroy a Palestinian community and RIGHT ON TOP build brand new Apartments, homes and playgrounds. It's to prove a point. But all this doesn't necessarily mean the Taj Mahal was a Hindu temple.

[Anakin]

Re: Taj Mahal was built and owned by Hindus Well so far the only test done indicates otherwise. And unless more tests are done more thoroughly, it'll always have a question mark. There might be a reason why govt is reluctant to do tests.

[Guest dada_rocks]

Re: Taj Mahal was built and owned by Hindus

Well so far the only test done indicates otherwise. And unless more tests are done more thoroughly' date=' it'll always have a question mark. There might be a reason why govt is reluctant to do tests.[/quote'] Precisely, :wtg:

[Anakin]

Re: Taj Mahal was built and owned by Hindus It seems like all the mockery of the article and author was done in blind faith rather than "open-mindedness"

[dhruvdeepak]

Re: Taj Mahal was built and owned by Hindus

Cant be bothered. There is just way too much junk in the first 6 points I read.

i agree with shwetabh. what bullshit facts are these? my eyes rolled back so much from reading the first 10 points that i got a lovely view of my brain, small as it may be. some propaganda driven hogwash put forward by an anti-Muslim jackass. you are trying to sell me THIS as fact???

4.Since the lady's name was Mumtaz (ending with 'Z') the name of the building derived from her should have been Taz Mahal, if at all, and not Taj (spelled with a 'J').

Wah. look i am a Hindu, i pray every day, i say my shlokas, i have my reservations about some things in the Muslim world....but this hate driven anti-Muslim tirade i will refuse to give more than a sneering glance. it makes US look bad, to say the least, to be giving credence to these pathetic rants.

[Guest dada_rocks]

Re: Taj Mahal was built and owned by Hindus Yes this point is at best shaky but we have beaten the only scienitific point claimed and dare i say it does stregthen the OP premise. If u want u can come to aid of shwetabh and produce sthg which could corroborate his claim. I have put that in bold so I am sure it's hard to miss.

[gator]

Re: Taj Mahal was built and owned by Hindus

Wah. look i am a Hindu, i pray every day, i say my shlokas, i have my reservations about some things in the Muslim world....but this hate driven anti-Muslim tirade i will refuse to give more than a sneering glance. it makes US look bad, to say the least, to be giving credence to these pathetic rants.

i am a hindu too.... i am willing and ready to forgive.... but why do i have to deny, if there is any truth in it... i have the right to know, cos it is my FACKING country.... u can choose to side the taj or tejolaya irrespective of what religion u r.... i suggest debating tht article and its points rather than the author and posters who find it a bit reasonable cos they have other reasons to suspect too....