Impact!

[WebSlave]

They estimate this has already happened 6 times in Earth's history?? :eek:

hTKau14cvQ4

[Casey Hulse]

Ouch, That is gonna hurt.
About 12-15 years ago I recall a news flash that an asteroid was going to pass very close the the earth in 30 years, and possibly strike us, then the reports were called inaccurate...Then a year or 2 later we all started working on the international space station.. My thoughts are that some governments got together, realized the threat and started building a platform to launch atomic missiles from space...Oh well, I'll bring the hotdogs and marshmellows.. Not much we can do about the super volcano that is called Yellowstone Park though, I think we are about 60,000 years overdue for an eruption.
Try to live each day as if it was your last.:yesnod:

[Metachrosis]

That ranks right along side of carbon dating :rolleyes_

[JColt]

If it comes you might just want to sit and watch. No use crying and running.

[Shadera]

Not much we can do about the super volcano that is called Yellowstone Park though, I think we are about 60,000 years overdue for an eruption.
Try to live each day as if it was your last.:yesnod:


:beer:

[WebSlave]

If it comes you might just want to sit and watch. No use crying and running.

Yeah. Heck, survivalism is fine and dandy and all, but who would want to spend the rest of their lives living in some hole in the ground till your air and water ran out?

What I find interesting is that if the earth went through this six times in the past, and the planet got sterilized, did life start over from scratch each time, evolution and all?

[JColt]

What I find interesting is that if the earth went through this six times in the past, and the planet got sterilized, did life start over from scratch each time, evolution and all?

If I get some free time I'll look and see if any answers. It is something I'd be interested in looking in to.

[WebSlave]

If I get some free time I'll look and see if any answers. It is something I'd be interested in looking in to.

If it did, the implications of this are quite intriguing.....

[JColt]

Looking here they believed about 2% survived mass extinction. Many unanswered questions because some fossils are very deep underground.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/erwin-extinction.html

Another interesting read
http://www.abc2news.com/dpp/weather/weather_blogs/new-evidence-show-a-meteorite-caused-mass-extinction-on-earth

It looks like enough animal and plant life has survived to regenerate. Over 100.000 to millions of years afterward.

[snowgyre]

What I find interesting is that if the earth went through this six times in the past, and the planet got sterilized, did life start over from scratch each time, evolution and all?

Earth did not start from scratch each time. Previous theorized meteorite impacts are followed by large extinction events though that changed the relative abundance and dominance of different organismal groups, however. Many branches of science, including paleontology, embryology, genetics, microbiology, etc. all point to continual evolution of species, not repeated, spontaneous, independent origins of life.

For example, a meteor is theorized to have caused the dinosaurs to go extinct (although a more recent theory is that massive volcano eruptions in ancient India actually caused global shifts in weather that mimicked a meteorite impact, but the end result is the same). During the last age of the dinosaurs, mammals were small, relatively rare, and probably subterranean. The largest of these first mammals actually had no size overlap with even the smallest dinosaurs, indicating that mammals simply couldn't compete with dinosaurs. When the dinosaurs went extinct, the humble mammals were 'released', if I may borrow a forestry term, and diversified. If not for the massive extinction event at the end of the Cretaceous, we as Homo sapiens would simply not exist.

These catastrophic global events do cause significant changes in flora and fauna, but so far Earth has not experienced such a catastrophe that life itself was ended. If that ever happened, it would be highly unlikely that Earth would ever see life again. Earth is gradually cooling, the content of the atmosphere is changing (notably less oxygen), and the sun itself will run out of fuel in another 5 billion years. It took Earth 3.6 billion years of evolution to get the creatures we have today.

[WebSlave]

As a sideline interesting thought, a while back I read some discussion that inferred that the largest of the dinosaurs found in the fossil historical record couldn't possibly have survived on Earth with the gravity that now exists. The bone structure and associated musculature could not have supported such mass against the pull of gravity this planet has today.

I thought that too was a rather intriguing thought, when you try to consider how the gravity of Earth could have changed between then and now.

Now back to these large impacting bodies, you have to wonder what such impacts would do with Earth's position in space. Heck, mere earthquakes have been known to alter the Earth's rotational period. How much kinetic energy of a huge impacting object would be transferred to Earth as MOVEMENT? Heck, put a baseball on a stump and hit it with a .22 bullet. What happens to the baseball?

The Earth does have a rather pronounced wobble to it. Not to mention the tectonic plates are wiggling all around, when you think this old ball of dirt would have had a stable mantle by now and those plates wouldn't all be moving around so much. Maybe this planet is STILL trying to recover from the last time something stuck it.

I believe there are a LOT of things about the history of this planet that are either completely unknown, or else known, but apparently believed to be too unhealthy for the general public to know about.

Of course, the obvious fact here is that it CAN happen again. And there is absolutely nothing anyone could do about it, even with forewarning.

Oh, have you heard the rumors about some governments digging underground shelters? And are countries going bankrupt from spending money like there is no tomorrow all JUST malfeasance? How much of what any government tells us is believable any longer? WHY all the lying?

Just curious thoughts to ponder..........

[Metachrosis]

Most of the semi recent "to-do" regarding bunkers is actually outdated in many respects
The tunnel system under the white house etc,didnt get a second look when the media
brought it to question.
Places like Greenbrier are not a secret,there are bunkers all over the world
for the elite and top government.
That little volley we are having in the sand box is not all about shooting sheets.
There are several really deep holes dug deep in that desert,the media wouldn't dare touch it.

Strong suspensions suggest "foreign aid" as the financial source.
US tax dollars funding foreign hide-outs,Really!?! like we the people could do anything about it ??

[JColt]

They think the 6th mass extinction has already started since early humans evolved. We are directly responsible for the extinction numerous plants and animals at lightning speed.

[AbsoluteApril]

it's only a matter of time before nature finds a way to rid itself of this 'human' virus and wipe the slate clean. and eventually the Earth will either turn into mars or spin off out of the solar system. there was a great program on Nova about that.... I'll see if I can find a link later

[Shadera]

The Earth does have a rather pronounced wobble to it. Not to mention the tectonic plates are wiggling all around, when you think this old ball of dirt would have had a stable mantle by now and those plates wouldn't all be moving around so much. Maybe this planet is STILL trying to recover from the last time something stuck it.

I believe there are a LOT of things about the history of this planet that are either completely unknown, or else known, but apparently believed to be too unhealthy for the general public to know about.



Pondering away! That's some interesting stuff I hadn't thought of before, but it makes a lot of sense. Time to burn the midnight oil.

[WebSlave]

Most of this planet's, and humanity's, history is either being hidden or flat out unknown. They are finding traces of civilizations underneath the seas. They are finding incredible constructions involving materials that we can't manage today in South America.

The history books seem to paint civilization starting overnight with Egypt. Egypt was built on the ruins of earlier civilizations.

Who made the prodigious effort to build the pyramids and why?

Heck everyone is using carbon dating as a supposedly "reliable" method of determining the dates of organic materials. Supposed to be a rock solid constant. Except that it's not. How many other things that we are using as constants might really only apply here NOW and not then? Does anyone who has lived in the dark all their lives even know that there CAN be light?

Heck even something as boring and mundane as sand puzzles the heck out of me. "Common" knowledge says that sand comes from erosion of mountains. Well OK, but then why is most sand found in areas where there are NO mountains to be found? Why isn't the sand piled up at the bottom of mountains everywhere? And isn't most sand made of quartz crystals? Ever seen any quartz mountains anywhere? Yeah, OK, maybe over millions of years the mountains got eroded down and the sand blown to the four points of the compass. But if that is the case, why are there mountain ranges that look sharp and jagged like they just popped fresh out of the ground VERY recently? Wouldn't all mountains be worn down uniformly in this gradually transforming world people are telling us that is under our feet?

Heck, ice ages are just a theory. They've never been PROVEN. But everyone accepts them as fact these days. I saw a mountain (or maybe just a very BIG hill. I'm from Florida, so scale is different here) while I was in southern California that was nothing but car and house sized BOULDERS piled one on top of another.

Look at geographical maps with an unbiased eye. What made all those wrinkles that we are calling mountain ranges? It looks like the land moved suddenly and then just pushed the land UP.

Heck, we can't even predict the weather 3 days in advance and we have scientists telling us how the universe, that we only catch glimmers of through telescopes, works. They say they KNOW how the sun works, but never been closer than 93 million miles to it. There is a LOT of interest in what the sun is doing lately. Go figure...

I'm trusting less and less what I was taught in school, and what appears to be mainstream "knowledge". I really don't think there are nearly as many "facts" as people would like us to believe.

[snowgyre]

Most of this planet's, and humanity's, history is either being hidden or flat out unknown. They are finding traces of civilizations underneath the seas. They are finding incredible constructions involving materials that we can't manage today in South America.

This is partially true. We know what the materials are, we just aren't sure how they were able to manufacture them to such a degree with comparatively primitive tools. Very fascinating field of study, and lots of tinkerers out there have figured out fairly simple but extremely effective contraptions that help explain how such massive weights may have been moved (such as on Easter Island).

The history books seem to paint civilization starting overnight with Egypt. Egypt was built on the ruins of earlier civilizations. Who made the prodigious effort to build the pyramids and why?

Slaves. Lots and lots of slaves. Thank goodness for today's labor laws! Emperors wanted to be remembered into perpetuity; never ascribe potentially outlandish theories when a situation can be easily described through humanity's most basic and primitive tenants: pride and greed.

Heck everyone is using carbon dating as a supposedly "reliable" method of determining the dates of organic materials. Supposed to be a rock solid constant. Except that it's not. How many other things that we are using as constants might really only apply here NOW and not then? Does anyone who has lived in the dark all their lives even know that there CAN be light?

Carbon dating is fairly reliable, just the resolution of the dates are fairly broad. If you want to date something to within, say, 30-50 years or so. Here's a pretty good summary from NC State University (available here: http://www.ncsu.edu/project/archae/enviro_radio/overview.html).

"Radiocarbon dating is especially good for determining the age of sites occupied within the last 26,000 years or so (but has the potential for sites over 50,000), can be used on carbon-based materials (organic or inorganic), and can be accurate to within ±30-50 years. Probably the most important factor to consider when using radiocarbon dating is if external factors, whether through artificial contamination, animal disturbance, or human negligence, contributed to any errors in the determinations. For example, rootlet intrusion, soil type (e.g., limestone carbonates), and handling of the specimens in the field or lab (e.g., accidental introduction of tobacco ash, hair, or fibers) can all potentially affect the age of a sample. Bioturbation by crabs, rodents, and other animals can also cause samples to move between strata leading to age reversals. Shell may succumb to isotopic exchange if it interacts with carbon from percolating ground acids or recrystallization when shell aragonite transforms to calcite and involves the exchange of modern calcite. "

Heck even something as boring and mundane as sand puzzles the heck out of me. "Common" knowledge says that sand comes from erosion of mountains. Well OK, but then why is most sand found in areas where there are NO mountains to be found? Why isn't the sand piled up at the bottom of mountains everywhere? And isn't most sand made of quartz crystals? Ever seen any quartz mountains anywhere? Yeah, OK, maybe over millions of years the mountains got eroded down and the sand blown to the four points of the compass. But if that is the case, why are there mountain ranges that look sharp and jagged like they just popped fresh out of the ground VERY recently? Wouldn't all mountains be worn down uniformly in this gradually transforming world people are telling us that is under our feet?

Erosion is a very powerful force, but it's hard to observe during our lifetime. An extreme example of erosion takes place in the mountains on the south island of New Zealand. These are among the youngest and fastest growing mountains in the world, but sustained brutal winds due to its exposure in the southern ocean causes these mountains to be eroded at several feet per year (I can't remember the exact number, I chatted with scientists when I visited New Zealand in 2006 and it was an amazing learning experience).

In addition, not all sand is made of quartz. "Practically, sand
may be considered to consist of small detrital fragments (rock or minteral
particles liberated by mechanical disintegration of parent rock material), biogenic particles (shells or shell fragments) or chemical precipitates (evaporites or oolites) occurring in nature and distinguishable by the naked eye." - http://www.sandcollectors.org/What_is_Sandx.html

Heck, ice ages are just a theory. They've never been PROVEN. But everyone accepts them as fact these days. I saw a mountain (or maybe just a very BIG hill. I'm from Florida, so scale is different here) while I was in southern California that was nothing but car and house sized BOULDERS piled one on top of another.

Ice ages aren't a theory. We know they happened. Animal distributions in North America give a particularly telling story. We find preserved specimens of pollen from arctic plants in bogs far south of where they occur today (including pine pollen, which is quite heavy and large and can't disperse via wind very far). Some arctic plant and animal species have disjointed populations and occur at high altitudes much farther south of where they are now (think pikas and ptarmigan in the western USA). They couldn't have gotten there by magic. In addition, geology itself tells you where water and ice used to be. Those boulders in California and in my hometown in upstate New York weren't put there by fastidious aliens.

Look at geographical maps with an unbiased eye. What made all those wrinkles that we are calling mountain ranges? It looks like the land moved suddenly and then just pushed the land UP.

Yep! In some areas of the world, upheaval is quite common. Subduction zones in the earth's crust cause one tectonic plate to sink, which makes the colliding plate buckle upwards and form mountains. The Rockies are an example of this type of mountain range formation. The Appalachians are another story as they aren't mountains in the strict definition of the word...

Heck, we can't even predict the weather 3 days in advance and we have scientists telling us how the universe, that we only catch glimmers of through telescopes, works. They say they KNOW how the sun works, but never been closer than 93 million miles to it. There is a LOT of interest in what the sun is doing lately. Go figure...

They know how the fusion reaction works, but just because you know an explosion happens in your internal combustion engine doesn't mean you have any idea how the rest of the motor works. The sun is amazingly complex and beautiful, with (currently) unpredictable magnetic perturbations, eruptions, and flares. The reason why we're very interested in these patterns now is because 1) we now have technology that is very badly affected by extreme solar events (remember the 1950s blackout?), 2) we have people in space that could be injured by radioactivity, and 3) the sun is our closest peek at examining how other stars work.

I'm trusting less and less what I was taught in school, and what appears to be mainstream "knowledge". I really don't think there are nearly as many "facts" as people would like us to believe.

It's fine to be skeptical, but a little research does go a long way. ;-) A good scientist is a good skeptic!

[Helenthereef]

:iagree::iagree::iagree:
What Vanessa said!

[AbsoluteApril]

oops it wasn't Nova, I was thinking of 'The Universe'. This one discusses 2029 Apophis asteroid, gamma ray bursts, red giant sun and 'the big rip' (universe expansion)

a3b9RC6MSG8

[WebSlave]

Ice ages aren't a theory. We know they happened. Animal distributions in North America give a particularly telling story. We find preserved specimens of pollen from arctic plants in bogs far south of where they occur today (including pine pollen, which is quite heavy and large and can't disperse via wind very far). Some arctic plant and animal species have disjointed populations and occur at high altitudes much farther south of where they are now (think pikas and ptarmigan in the western USA). They couldn't have gotten there by magic. In addition, geology itself tells you where water and ice used to be. Those boulders in California and in my hometown in upstate New York weren't put there by fastidious aliens.


And the proof that moves this from theory to fact is___________________???


Debunking the Ice Age

Kurt Johmann

Written: December 1999

About a month ago, in November 1999, I was reading the book Cataclysm by D. S. Allan and J. B. Delair.[1] This book is somewhat Velikovskyian, in that it concludes that the cataclysms that happened roughly 11,500 years ago were caused by a planet-sized object that passed close to Earth, resulting among other things in a bombardment of the Earth and an axis tilt.

The idea of a recent close-approach planet-sized object, and a recent axis tilt for the Earth, has been debunked repeatedly by many others over the last few decades, and I will just say that I agree with them. However, that the Earth’s biosphere experienced some major changes roughly 11,500 years ago is not disputed; the establishment explanation is that such changes were due to the end of the last Ice Age.

At the time of this writing, most educated people know what is meant by the phrase Ice Age. The following quote captures the essence of the Ice Age, as it is commonly taught to society (at least to the American society of which I am a part):

At the peak of the last ice age ... a layer of ice up to 2 miles thick in places extended all the way from the North Pole down to where London and New York are today. So much water was locked up as ice that the sea level worldwide was about 450 feet lower than it is now—this opened up “land-bridges” which made it possible for prehistoric humans to spread around the world.[2]

The above quoted passage captures what I consider to be the three fundamentals of the Ice Age belief system:

1. There were giant ice sheets that covered much of Europe and North America. The primary evidence given for the past existence of these alleged ice sheets is the existence in the affected regions of drift deposits and directed striations on rock faces. The claim is that the ice sheets were, in effect, glaciers whose undersides slowly dragged along rocks, boulders, trees, and such, resulting in drift deposits in those places where this dragged debris accumulated, and resulting in directed striations (in effect, scratch marks) on those fixed rock faces across which the ice sheet had slid (the scratches being caused by rocks that were dragged along underneath the ice sheet).

2. There was a greatly lowered sea level, because the water in those alleged ice sheets had to come from somewhere. Given the estimated land area covered by the alleged ice sheets, and given their alleged average thickness, it is a straightforward procedure to calculate how much lower the Earth’s oceans would have been.

3. Given the alleged greatly lowered sea level, the Bering Strait land-bridge makes its miraculous appearance. This alleged bridge, connecting Siberia to Alaska, is the alleged means by which the Americas were populated with its Indian peoples.

One may call these three beliefs—the alleged giant ice sheets, the alleged greatly lowered sea level, and the alleged Bering Strait land-bridge by which the Indians came—the holy trinity of the Ice Age.

For the average educated American the truthfulness of this holy trinity goes unquestioned. After all, not only is one brainwashed with it in school, but that brainwashing is reinforced by the many books and magazines, and TV shows (including both fiction shows such as movies, and so-called science shows), that take the reality of the Ice Age for granted. And thus, like Pavlov’s dog, the mere mention of the phrase Ice Age should make one salivate the holy trinity: the ice sheets, the lower sea levels, and the Bering Strait land-bridge across which the Indians came.

Up until my recent reading of the book Cataclysm, I had assumed there were ice sheets, just as the Ice Age belief system teaches, and just as I had been brainwashed to believe. However, the authors of Cataclysm say that the imagined ice sheets are a fiction, because the drift deposits and scratch marks, which constitute the primary physical evidence for the ice sheets, are better explained as the result of moving water (in effect, a great flood), rather than moving ice.

In terms of physical causation, there is no doubt that moving water can transport great boulders and all the smaller items found in drift deposits; and there is no doubt that scratch marks on fixed rock faces can be made by rocks carried along by water. So why was the moving-water explanation rejected in favor of moving ice? I would guess that most readers of this essay can see the answer just as easily as I can: a great flood means catastrophism, whereas a great ice sheet means gradualism. This battle of catastrophism versus gradualism was fought by the establishment in the 19th century, and the doctrine of gradualism won—presumably because the doctrine of gradualism better served the interests of the establishment than catastrophism.

Although catastrophism has been banned by the establishment for more than a century—giving science-ignorant cranks, such as Velikovsky, a chance to fill the void—catastrophism has undergone a recent rehabilitation, because mass extinctions are now accepted to be the result of impacts by comets and/or asteroids. And once the door was opened regarding large impactors, then the potential effects of all the smaller potential impactors could be considered. Thus, for example, establishment scientists have run simulations of Atlantic-ocean impacts by an asteroid in the kilometer-sized range, showing a flooding of large parts of America. There are thousands of these kilometer-sized rocks in Earth-crossing orbits.

Given that a great flood washing across large continental regions now has a simple explanation in terms of oceanic impact, which is known to happen, then this means that the primary physical evidence for the alleged ice sheets has an alternative explanation that does not require the existence of ice sheets. So what other physical evidence is there, if any, for there having been these alleged ice sheets?

In an effort to determine if the ice sheets had nevertheless been real, I first focused on the claim of a greatly lowered sea level. Realizing that I could not recall ever reading of any direct physical evidence for this claim, I searched the Internet in vain trying to find such evidence. Finally, during my Internet searching, I came upon a document titled as follows: The Future of Marine Geology and Geophysics; Draft Report of a Workshop; Ashland Hills, Oregon; December 5–7, 1996; Sponsored by the National Science Foundation, Division of Ocean Sciences.[3] In this document, in its Chapter 4, Report of Thematic Working Group #3, I finally found what appeared to be a clear answer—albeit shrouded in technical language—as to why I was unable to find mention on the Internet of any direct physical evidence for the Ice Age claim of a greatly lowered sea level:

An important shift in our understanding of the history and mechanism of sea-level changes has occurred over the last decade. Earlier ideas of global, simultaneous sea-level change, known as eustasy, hinged on a direct linkage between the last great ice sheets and the world ocean level, a concept known as glacio-eustasy. Glacio-eustasy was generally thought to be a relatively gradual process. As researchers from around the world compared geologic archives of sea-level change during the 1970's and 1980's it became apparent that a varied and locally-dominated sea-level history is preserved in Holocene and post-glacial records at different areas. ... By the middle and end of the 1980's the role of glacio-eustasy as the great driving mechanism of global sea levels had been supplanted by an understanding that few coastal margins are truly stable and that the goal of defining a single, detailed eustatic record of the last interglacial cycle is unattainable.[4]

In effect, what the above quote is saying is that there is no clear physical evidence for the Ice Age claim of a greatly lowered sea level. And this explains why my search trying to find a mention and/or a description of such physical evidence was fruitless; it appears that such evidence does not exist. Thus, the claim of a greatly lowered sea level appears to be nothing more than an inference, dependent upon the assumption that the ice sheets existed in the first place.

After my above described Internet search, I realized that the alleged ice sheets were probably a fiction—but one consideration remained: from such sources as the Greenland ice cores establishment science claims to have a good record of average global temperatures for a long time into the past, including the time of the alleged last Ice Age. So, the reasonable question is this: are the alleged average global temperatures at the time of the alleged last Ice Age sufficiently cold to infer that the alleged ice sheets were really present, at least to some extent? The short answer to this question is no, not even close. Consider the following statement (from an online document titled Climate Change: Causes, Impacts and Uncertainties; identified as being the “Testimony of Stephen H. Schneider,” who is a “Professor, Department of Biological Sciences” at “Stanford University”; dated “July 10, 1997”):

The Ice Age, which at its maximum some 20,000 years ago was about 5 degrees to 7 degrees C (around 10 degrees F) colder than our current global climate, disappeared in, what is to nature, a relatively rapid period of about five to ten thousand years. ... Explanations of the Ice Age vary, the most popular one being a change in the amount of sunlight coming in between (a) winter and summer and (b) the poles and the equator. These changes in the distribution of seasonal or latitudinal sunshine are due to slow variations in the tilt of the earth's axis and other orbital elements, but these astronomical variations alone cannot totally explain the climatic cycles. If these orbital variations and other factors (such as the increased reflectivity of the earth associated with more ice) are combined, our best climate theories (embodied through mathematical models that are comprised of the physical laws of conservation of mass, energy and momentum) suggest that the Ice Age should have been several degrees warmer than it actually was—especially in the Southern hemisphere.[5]

As the above statement makes clear, the coldest that the alleged last Ice Age got was only “5 degrees to 7 degrees C (around 10 degrees F) colder than our current global climate.” This given temperature range is what establishment science believes its analyses of Greenland ice cores and other physical samples indicate as to what the past temperatures were. And it is also interesting to note that the above statement mentions that computer models for the time period in question actually estimate that the average worldwide temperatures should have been “several degrees warmer than it actually was.”

Regarding computer models, the reason that I came across Schneider’s above statement is because I was specifically searching for any claims for the existence of computer models that show that the alleged ice sheets could have actually formed when given the environmental conditions believed to have been present during the time period in question. However, I was unable to find any such claims regarding computer models; probably because no reputable scientist is making such a claim.

That there appear to be no computer models that give us the alleged ice sheets is not surprising, because simple back-of-the-envelope calculations do not support the growth of the alleged ice sheets. For example, in New York City—an ice sheet is alleged to have covered New York City—the average temperature for the summer months of June, July, and August is about 24 degrees C (76 degrees F). Now, 24 – 7 is 17 degrees C, and the freezing point of water is 0 degrees C. Thus, obviously, no matter how much it may have snowed in the preceding months, it will all melt away during those three summer months whose average temperature is 17 degrees C. As another example consider the fact that Siberia, which has average temperatures roughly 20 degrees C below those of New York City, is not covered with an ice sheet. Thus, given such simple considerations, and given the lack of computer models claiming otherwise, it seems safe to say that lowering the world’s average temperature by 7 degrees C will not give us the alleged ice sheets claimed by the Ice Age belief system.

At this point in the discussion it seems safe to conclude that the alleged ice sheets never existed. However, given the extensive brainwashing that educated Americans have undergone with regard to the Ice Age, I would expect the average person who has received that brainwashing to grasp at whatever straws are at hand to dismiss what I have said and cling to his brainwashed Ice Age beliefs. Such is the power of establishment fiction when it is poured into the minds of the young, and then reinforced by endless media repetitions (often these media repetitions consist of nothing more than an affirmative use of the phrase Ice Age).

At this point I would like to comment on the political reasons for the great emphasis placed by the American establishment on the alleged Bering Strait land-bridge and the alleged origin of the native Indian populations.

Over the course of roughly two centuries the American empire reduced the native Indian population, roughly estimated at 12 million before the assault began, to a population of only about one-quarter million at the end of the 19th century. For the most part the native Indian population was reduced by means of murder and starvation. The American empire over its long life has a pattern of falsifying the history of its victim nations, and that is where the Bering Strait land-bridge comes in. In the imagination of the average American, by believing that the native Indians were recent arrivals who came across the Bering Strait land-bridge, that lessens the Indians’ claim to be here, and it makes them look like vagabond interlopers who had no more right to America than the European newcomers. Consider the words of historian Vine Deloria Jr., a Native American Indian:

Scientists, and I use the word as loosely as possible, are committed to the view that Indians migrated to this country over an imaginary Bering Straits bridge, which comes and goes at the convenience of the scholar requiring it to complete his or her theory. Initially, at least, Indians are homogenous. But there are also eight major language families within the Western Hemisphere, indicating to some scholars that if Indians followed the trend that can be identified in other continents, then the migration went from east to west; tourists along the Bering straits were going TO Asia, not migrating FROM it.[6]

Although the alleged Bering Strait land-bridge is specifically aimed at the American Indians, the Ice Age belief, as a whole, is aimed at humanity as a whole, because it is a belief that erases human history. After all, lands covered by alleged mile-thick ice sheets are lands where no one can live. Thus, by creating the imaginary fiction of massive ice sheets covering the lands for millions of years, the Ice Age belief system helps to support the larger campaign by establishment science to hide the fact that mankind has been on the Earth for millions of years, instead of the mere thousands of years that the establishment wants people to believe.

Regarding the physical evidence for mankind’s presence on the Earth for millions of years, see, for example, The Hidden History of the Human Race, by Michael Cremo and Richard Thompson; or see my discussion of the subject in the section The Age of Modern Man According to Cremo and Thompson, in my online book The Computer Inside You.[7]

-------------------------------------------------------
footnotes

[1] Allan, D. S., and J. B. Delair. Cataclysm!: Compelling Evidence of a Cosmic Catastrophe in 9500 B.C. Bear & Company, Santa Fe, New Mexico, 1997.

[2] Copied from an online document titled The Vostok ice core data (the document has no author name or date), at:


http://www.daflight.demon.co.uk/science/index.htm

[3] At: http://www.joss.ucar.edu/joss_psg/project/oce_workshop/fumages/contents.html

[4] At: http://www.joss.ucar.edu/joss_psg/project/oce_workshop/fumages/chapter4.html

The quoted text can be found under the heading titled C. Key Questions / Unresolved Issues, within the text that answers its question 1: What are the dominant processes controlling global sea-level change on the time scale of the late Quaternary? What is their timing and magnitude?

[5] At: http://www.senate.gov/~epw/105th/schn0710.htm

[6] At: http://www.indigenouspeople.org/natlit/vine.htm

[7] At: http://www.johmann.net/book/ciy9-1.html


Source: http://www.johmann.net/essays/ice-age.html

As a note, I believe I read that book called Cataclysm and it provided a wealth of documentation refuting the ice age theory. I know it's around here somewhere............

[WebSlave]

Carbon dating is fairly reliable, just the resolution of the dates are fairly broad. If you want to date something to within, say, 30-50 years or so. Here's a pretty good summary from NC State University (available here: http://www.ncsu.edu/project/archae/enviro_radio/overview.html).

"Radiocarbon dating is especially good for determining the age of sites occupied within the last 26,000 years or so (but has the potential for sites over 50,000), can be used on carbon-based materials (organic or inorganic), and can be accurate to within ±30-50 years. Probably the most important factor to consider when using radiocarbon dating is if external factors, whether through artificial contamination, animal disturbance, or human negligence, contributed to any errors in the determinations. For example, rootlet intrusion, soil type (e.g., limestone carbonates), and handling of the specimens in the field or lab (e.g., accidental introduction of tobacco ash, hair, or fibers) can all potentially affect the age of a sample. Bioturbation by crabs, rodents, and other animals can also cause samples to move between strata leading to age reversals. Shell may succumb to isotopic exchange if it interacts with carbon from percolating ground acids or recrystallization when shell aragonite transforms to calcite and involves the exchange of modern calcite. "


How many assumptions are there to base the accuracy of carbon dating?


The technology, called radiocarbon dating, relies on the fact that cosmic rays transform nitrogen in the atmosphere into a radioactive form of carbon called carbon-14. Carbon-14 has six protons and eight neutrons -- for a total of 14 nuclear particles. It is unstable and immediately starts decaying to nitrogen 14. Living plants take in carbon-14 and store it in their tissues. When they die, the radioactive form eventually decays and disappears. Thus the ratio of the specimen's carbon-14 content to the carbon-14 content found in modern plants reveals how long ago the plant stopped taking in carbon dioxide -- in other words, when it died.




Carbon Dating Accuracy: What Are The Flaws Of Carbon Dating?

Used to estimate the age of ancient artifacts and human and animal remains, radiocarbon dating is regarded by many as one of the miracles of modern science. Some, however, have serious doubts about the credibility of this technique.

Radiocarbon dating works by comparing the amount of normal carbon that is found in a sample with the amount of radioactive carbon. Both carbon and radioactive carbon are found in every living organism. While carbon is quite prevalent in these organisms, radioactive carbon is present only in tiny amounts. Some contend that the relative ratios of carbon and radioactive carbon that are found on the earth have remained constant over time and that, using known rates of decay; we can estimate age on the basis of changes in this ratio in a particular artifact or remains.

Radioactive carbon is absorbed by living organisms throughout their entire life. When the organism dies that absorption stops and the radioactive carbon begins to break down. Because this break down occurs at a known rate it is theoretically possible to compare the amount of regular carbon and the amount of radioactive carbon and estimate just how long an organism has been dead.

Although the theory of radiocarbon dating is interesting, there are several inherent problems with the process. The first of these problems is the fact that the original ratio of carbon and radioactive carbon is unknown. The second problem is that the possibility of contamination of the sample over time is quite high. The older the sample the higher the probability of contamination, in fact! What this means is that using carbon dating to date very old samples is really quite impractical given our current level of knowledge and technological capabilities.

While carbon dating continues to be considered by many as a viable way of obtaining authoritative dates for a wide range of artifacts and remains, there is much room for error in the process. Even the use of accelerator mass spectrometry to analyze the relative levels of carbon and radioactive carbon has resulted in flawed determinations. It is not uncommon for different laboratories to determine quite different ages for the same artifact! While some of this deviation could possibly be explained by contamination or erred methodology in the labs themselves, it is apparent that the problems with carbon dating are much more complex than that.

Very simply put, too many things are unknown to allow the carbon dating process to be as accurate as many proclaim it to be. Factors as diverse as changes in the earth's magnetic field and changes in the amount of carbon available to organisms in times past could translate into perceivable differences in the carbon ratios in artifacts and remains from ancient times. Even changes in the atmosphere itself could impact this carbon ratio. We know that changes such as these have occurred over time. They are still occurring today in fact.

The fact that carbon and radioactive carbon are independently formed means that their ratios to one another could have changed substantially from ancient times to today. To base our knowledge on the age of the earth and its various constituents on information gleaned from a technique that depends on carbon and radioactive carbon ratios is very simply unrealistic


Source: http://www.essortment.com/carbon-dating-accuracy-flaws-carbon-dating-37183.html

================================


Is the Sun Emitting a Mystery Particle?

Analysis by Ian O'Neill
Wed Aug 25, 2010 02:21 PM ET

When probing the deepest reaches of the Cosmos or magnifying our understanding of the quantum world, a whole host of mysteries present themselves. This is to be expected when pushing our knowledge of the Universe to the limit.

But what if a well-known -- and apparently constant -- characteristic of matter starts behaving mysteriously?

This is exactly what has been noticed in recent years; the decay rates of radioactive elements are changing. This is especially mysterious as we are talking about elements with "constant" decay rates -- these values aren't supposed to change. School textbooks teach us this from an early age

This is the conclusion that researchers from Stanford and Purdue University have arrived at, but the only explanation they have is even weirder than the phenomenon itself: The sun might be emitting a previously unknown particle that is meddling with the decay rates of matter. Or, at the very least, we are seeing some new physics.

Many fields of science depend on measuring constant decay rates. For example, to accurately date ancient artifacts, archaeologists measure the quantity of carbon-14 found inside organic samples at dig sites. This is a technique known as carbon dating.

Carbon-14 has a very defined half-life of 5730 years; i.e. it takes 5,730 years for half of a sample of carbon-14 to radioactively decay into stable nitrogen-14. Through spectroscopic analysis of the ancient organic sample, by finding out what proportion of carbon-14 remains, we can accurately calculate how old it is.

But as you can see, carbon dating makes one huge assumption: radioactive decay rates remain constant and always have been constant. If this new finding is proven to be correct, even if the impact is small, it will throw the science community into a spin.

Interestingly, researchers at Purdue first noticed something awry when they were using radioactive samples for random number generation. Each decay event occurs randomly (hence the white noise you'd hear from a Geiger counter), so radioactive samples provide a non-biased random number generator.

However, when they compared their measurements with other scientists' work, the values of the published decay rates were not the same. In fact, after further research they found that not only were they not constant, but they'd vary with the seasons. Decay rates would slightly decrease during the summer and increase during the winter.

Experimental error and environmental conditions have all been ruled out -- the decay rates are changing throughout the year in a predictable pattern. And there seems to be only one answer.

As the Earth is closer to the sun during the winter months in the Northern Hemisphere (our planet's orbit is slightly eccentric, or elongated), could the sun be influencing decay rates?

In another moment of weirdness, Purdue nuclear engineer Jere Jenkins noticed an inexplicable drop in the decay rate of manganese-54 when he was testing it one night in 2006. It so happened that this drop occurred just over a day before a large flare erupted on the sun.

Did the sun somehow communicate with the manganese-54 sample? If it did, something from the sun would have had to travel through the Earth (as the sample was on the far side of our planet from the sun at the time) unhindered.

The sun link was made even stronger when Peter Sturrock, Stanford professor emeritus of applied physics, suggested that the Purdue scientists look for other recurring patterns in decay rates. As an expert of the inner workings of the sun, Sturrock had a hunch that solar neutrinos might hold the key to this mystery.

Sure enough, the researchers noticed the decay rates vary repeatedly every 33 days -- a period of time that matches the rotational period of the core of the sun. The solar core is the source of solar neutrinos.

It may all sound rather circumstantial, but these threads of evidence appear to lead to a common source of the radioactive decay rate variation. But there's a huge problem with speculation that solar neutrinos could impact decay rates on Earth: neutrinos aren't supposed to work like that.

Neutrinos, born from the nuclear processes in the core of the sun, are ghostly particles. They can literally pass through the Earth unhindered as they so weakly interact. How could such a quantum welterweight have any measurable impact on radioactive samples in the lab?

In short, nobody knows.

If neutrinos are the culprits, it means we are falling terribly short of understanding the true nature of these subatomic particles. But if (and this is a big if) neutrinos aren't to blame, is the sun generating an as-yet-to-be- discovered particle?

If either case is true, we'll have to go back and re-write those textbooks.

Source: http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/august/sun-082310.html


Source: http://news.discovery.com/space/is-the-sun-emitting-a-mystery-particle.html

[snowgyre]

Rich, to quote your own words from another thread, " A majority [of scientists] disagree with your opinion, so it MUST be a conspiracy......... No, it couldn't POSSIBLY be the likelihood that you hold a minority opinion about something." I could go on and on, but these are quite literally topics that would take ages for me to explain in great detail and that I freely admit I am no expert on (although I dare say I am more informed than most due to the nature of my education). However, and I mean absolutely no offense here, sometimes I wonder if you really are interested in what information I share or if you are simply trying to feed the fascination you have with conspiracy theories.

One book does not refute established scientific theories that have been researched ad nauseum by multiple independent researches in multiple independent fields and are considered to be the closest to the actual truth that we can get without actually traveling back and time and observing something. From your quotes above, Cataclysm reads like a fundamental Christian book, struggling to distort scientific findings to fit in with a fundamentally incorrect and religiously-based world view.

A scientific theory is the third step in the scientific process. First is the generation of hypotheses, or questions regarding the world around us. It is vital to generate a testable hypothesis. For example, the hypothesis "the Earth revolves around the sun due to the sun's greater gravitational field" is directly testable... we simply need to develop instrumentation to measure distortions in the gravitational field and examine patterns of distant stars to support that particular hypothesis. In contrast, the hypothesis, "the sun revolves around the Earth because a goddess is chasing the moon god" is not directly testable, and the hypothesis will likely be continually adapted to meet the observer's world view about gods and goddesses rather than actually be a right or wrong answer.

Once an adequate hypothesis is developed, then testing begins. This can take centuries, as is the case with the geological, molecular, radioactive, and biological evidence I gave above. Once adequate information is gathered, we can choose to either reject or accept the hypothesis. If the hypothesis is accepted, the hypothesis then becomes a theory. If the hypothesis is rejected, we learn from our mistakes and generate new hypotheses based upon the best available data (in contrast with simply adjusting a fanciful story to explain physical events).

You claim ice ages are a theory. Alright, I'll let you have that. But the ideas that Cataclysm appears to present are simply hypotheses.

I can throw facts at people all day long, but ultimately you have to have some faith that we really do have adequate and testable methods established to examine these hypothesis and turn them into theories. That said, no method is perfect. There are assumptions, limitations, etc. etc. Those limitations and assumptions do not invalidate the method as a useful tool, however, if you simply acknowledge them (which researchers do). You can use a screwdriver as a hammer, but that doesn't mean it's the best tool for the job, but if all you have is a screwdriver to fix your car, you will make it work. And to use a movie metaphor, you can choose to believe that we developed cellular phone technology from Megatron after he crash landed in the arctic and was discovered by an explorer, or you can have at least some faith in humanity's creativity that we were actually able to learn these things on our own.

Informed skepticism advances our thinking, but ignorant skepticism is simply baseless opinion.

[WebSlave]

Rich, to quote your own words from another thread, " A majority [of scientists] disagree with your opinion, so it MUST be a conspiracy......... No, it couldn't POSSIBLY be the likelihood that you hold a minority opinion about something." I could go on and on, but these are quite literally topics that would take ages for me to explain in great detail and that I freely admit I am no expert on (although I dare say I am more informed than most due to the nature of my education). However, and I mean absolutely no offense here, sometimes I wonder if you really are interested in what information I share or if you are simply trying to feed the fascination you have with conspiracy theories.

One book does not refute established scientific theories that have been researched ad nauseum by multiple independent researches in multiple independent fields and are considered to be the closest to the actual truth that we can get without actually traveling back and time and observing something. From your quotes above, Cataclysm reads like a fundamental Christian book, struggling to distort scientific findings to fit in with a fundamentally incorrect and religiously-based world view.

A scientific theory is the third step in the scientific process. First is the generation of hypotheses, or questions regarding the world around us. It is vital to generate a testable hypothesis. For example, the hypothesis "the Earth revolves around the sun due to the sun's greater gravitational field" is directly testable... we simply need to develop instrumentation to measure distortions in the gravitational field and examine patterns of distant stars to support that particular hypothesis. In contrast, the hypothesis, "the sun revolves around the Earth because a goddess is chasing the moon god" is not directly testable, and the hypothesis will likely be continually adapted to meet the observer's world view about gods and goddesses rather than actually be a right or wrong answer.

Once an adequate hypothesis is developed, then testing begins. This can take centuries, as is the case with the geological, molecular, radioactive, and biological evidence I gave above. Once adequate information is gathered, we can choose to either reject or accept the hypothesis. If the hypothesis is accepted, the hypothesis then becomes a theory. If the hypothesis is rejected, we learn from our mistakes and generate new hypotheses based upon the best available data (in contrast with simply adjusting a fanciful story to explain physical events).

You claim ice ages are a theory. Alright, I'll let you have that. But the ideas that Cataclysm appears to present are simply hypotheses.

I can throw facts at people all day long, but ultimately you have to have some faith that we really do have adequate and testable methods established to examine these hypothesis and turn them into theories. That said, no method is perfect. There are assumptions, limitations, etc. etc. Those limitations and assumptions do not invalidate the method as a useful tool, however, if you simply acknowledge them (which researchers do). You can use a screwdriver as a hammer, but that doesn't mean it's the best tool for the job, but if all you have is a screwdriver to fix your car, you will make it work. And to use a movie metaphor, you can choose to believe that we developed cellular phone technology from Megatron after he crash landed in the arctic and was discovered by an explorer, or you can have at least some faith in humanity's creativity that we were actually able to learn these things on our own.

Informed skepticism advances our thinking, but ignorant skepticism is simply baseless opinion.

So, I take it from your post that you did not actually READ that book Cataclysm, then?

What would be YOUR definition of "ignorant skepticism"? Maybe something along the lines of rejecting something someone never even bothers to read? :rolleyes:

Yeah, I know, you don't NEED to actually read it in order to be skeptical of it.

It's fine to be skeptical, but a little research does go a long way. ;-) A good scientist is a good skeptic!

Yeah, certainly. I think considering another explanation rather than just rejecting something out of hand because it bucks the established theory of the day is pretty shocking of a concept. :D

Apparently a "good scientist" is only a "good skeptic", if he or she only questions theories that buck the accepted status quo of theories that are granted the status of "fact" simply because of a default choice?

Ice ages aren't a theory. We know they happened.

Oh really? :shrug01:

So tell me, what is the status of any theory that even ONE fact refutes?

And what would you consider "scientists" who continue to proclaim this theory in spite of factual evidence that disputes it's validity?

At the very least, wouldn't it be wise to stop claiming that "Ice ages aren't a theory. We know they happened."?

I guess you believe your "education" makes you a scientist and you resent the concept that scientists can be wrong, and yet still follow a herd mentality to follow a currently accepted leading theory and call it "fact"? I'm sure something like that has NEVER happened in the past......... :rolleyes:

I presented some claims that dispute your "facts" and you just dismiss it out of hand. So why don't you just state that you want to believe what you have been told to believe, and leave it at that? I am not disappointed nor surprised at such an attitude at all. It's not at all like it is unusual or anything.

[snowgyre]

So tell me, what is the status of any theory that even ONE fact refutes?

If that one fact was determined through repeated studies by independent observers, then a portion of that theory may be incorrect. Science builds upon former knowledge and is a progression of ideas. Theories are not infallible, hence why they are called theories and not physical Laws.

And what would you consider "scientists" who continue to proclaim this theory in spite of factual evidence that disputes it's validity?

I would consider them inflexible, but replace the word "scientists" with "people" and I think you may be calling the kettle black here.

At the very least, wouldn't it be wise to stop claiming that "Ice ages aren't a theory. We know they happened."?

A huge body of literature supports the fact that ice ages exist. I don't know what else I can say to you. It seems you are already convinced that your ideas/hypotheses are correct.

I guess you believe your "education" makes you a scientist and you resent the concept that scientists can be wrong, and yet still follow a herd mentality to follow a currently accepted leading theory and call it "fact"? I'm sure something like that has NEVER happened in the past......... :rolleyes:

This is quite the logical leap. I do not resent the concepts that scientists can, may, and will be wrong. In fact, I openly admit that we frequently make incorrect assumptions and do make mistakes. If you're not making mistakes, you're simply not trying hard enough.

A currently accepted leading theory is the best 'fact' we have at the time, and it takes an extraordinary degree of evidence, comparable to the body of evidence supporting that theory, to outright disprove a theory.

I presented some claims that dispute your "facts" and you just dismiss it out of hand. So why don't you just state that you want to believe what you have been told to believe, and leave it at that? I am not disappointed nor surprised at such an attitude at all. It's not at all like it is unusual or anything.

I don't necessarily believe what I've been told to believe. In fact, I have been struggling all my life dealing with science after being born and raised in a devout Catholic family. That conflict caused me quite a great deal of pain, family hardship, and psychological torment. Only recently have I been able to accept scientific fact over certain religious mythologies. It takes a great deal of evidence, personal strength, and constant questioning to overcome ideas that were ingrained in you since childhood, so I would like to believe that I am fairly open minded.

My whole purpose of the post above was to explore your own personal unwillingness to accept even the most broadly accepted scientific theories as valid. And no, I did not read the book. I thought I was fairly clear on stating that. My apologies, however, like I said before, one or two links to articles that are opinion pieces and/or gray literature is simply not enough evidence to cause me to doubt any of the theories you've called into question. Indeed, even one or two links to peer reviewed scientific literature that may be contrary to overall accepted theories is not enough evidence to overreach the plethora of scientific literature in support of those theories.

"Education" doesn't imply a degree. It implies a lifelong quest to improve one's base of knowledge. This also includes listening to dissenting opinions. I am continuously learning, even from those who I don't see eye to eye all the time. I thank you for the debate, but I will gracefully bow out now to avoid raising your hackles more than I have already. That was not my intent.

[WebSlave]

A huge body of literature supports the fact that ice ages exist. I don't know what else I can say to you. It seems you are already convinced that your ideas/hypotheses are correct.

A currently accepted leading theory is the best 'fact' we have at the time, and it takes an extraordinary degree of evidence, comparable to the body of evidence supporting that theory, to outright disprove a theory.

I thank you for the debate, but I will gracefully bow out now to avoid raising your hackles more than I have already. That was not my intent.

Fair enough. But I believe the issue that we disagree with is evident in your statements. You seem to use "theory" and "fact" interchangeably. I just disagree. To me "fact" is something indisputable. Beyond question. Without ANY doubts. PROVEN without any contrary FACTS. A "theory" is just speculation based on observations and opinions, but certainly NOT proven. A "theory" cannot be a "fact" by definition, otherwise it is no longer considered to be a "theory". And, of course, any theory can be disputed by other theories, but regardless, they are still THEORIES until one is actually proven to be FACT.

And in my opinion, any theory that has even one single solitary FACT that disputes it, then it is no longer even a valid theory. It WAS a theory, now disproved. Time to move on to the next most plausible theory.

I hope I have made the basis of my argument more clear.

I question EVERYTHING. Heck, when I was in second grade, my teacher told the class that snakes are invertebrates. I brought in a book the next day and stood in front of the class to prove her wrong. Didn't much endear me to her, I am sure, and that is quite intimidating to a kid. But I don't just swallow BS, no matter WHO is dishing it out. Heck, if you tell me what time it is, I will STILL glance at my own watch. :rofl:

Thanks for the spirited discussion. Don't worry about raising my hackles. As long as we can have a discussion that doesn't dip down to personal insults (which, unfortunately, I have trouble keeping from responding in like kind), then things will be just fine.