Archeology and Ancient Human Activity

Historic planetary instability and catastrophe. Evidence for electrical scarring on planets and moons. Electrical events in today's solar system. Electric Earth.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: Australian Dreaming - Aboriginal Sun

Unread postby Julian Braggins » Thu Jul 16, 2015 3:01 am

Of course if that were literally true, that they had to grope about with bark torches, there could have been no photosynthesis, so no plants, no animals, no food. The string of beads arrangement of the planets and axis mundi made a lot of sense in Egyptian Mythology interpretation, but not so much with this legend. Perhaps they were talking about a pre Moon era when in overcast weather in the Australian bush you cannot see a thing, nothing. Starlight is quite sufficient to get around even when there is no moon. (People may wonder why I have so many torches around the place now :? )
Julian Braggins
 
Posts: 110
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 11:13 pm

EU Theory and Archaeoastronomy dating

Unread postby LoneStarM » Wed Dec 30, 2015 3:17 pm

The practice of attempting to date ancient sites by astronomical alignments, from J. Norman Lockyer's "The Dawn of Astronomy" up to today, seems to conflict with the theories of I. Velikovsky and those whose research he inspired and influences.

At first thought it would seem that if electrical/plasma changes resulted in a changed orbit for the earth, that would either call into question the alignments of sites like stonehenge, question the accuracy of dates assigned by carbon dating, etc., or require the assignment of the orbital changes to a date before construction of the site.

Would an orbital change perhaps caused by a change in the overall +/- charge of "particle earth" alter the tilt and/or rotational period and would an alignment established before the orbital change still be valid?

On the other hand, if such a change in the earth's orbit would not be so changed, non solar alignments that do not now make sense, might yield hints at planetary alignments that may have existed before a catastrophic event occurred.

------
I am a "newbie" on this forum, so if this post question is inappropriate, I apologize.
User avatar
LoneStarM
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:57 pm

Re: EU Theory and Archaeoastronomy dating

Unread postby moses » Wed Dec 30, 2015 5:38 pm

Hello LoneStarM,
We have just been discussing the change in year length from 360 days to 365.25 days. Both Stonehenge and The Great Pyramid seem to depict this change. So you would be questioning the time after the construction of these.

Now it seems to me that a planetary interaction would be the most likely candidate to make that orbital shift to change the year length. Then one would expect quite a few electric current interactions with Venus to stabilise the orbits after that. So the question is can we find evidence of these small changes in orbit after this big change. Were there transient calendars of 364.8 days, say. And then Stonehenge and the Great Pyramid were built some years later when all the orbits had settled down.

So there are dating problems. And the issue of whether there were lots of planetary interactions after the 360/365.25 one. And if there were where is the orbital shift evidence. All good questions, but just let me say welcome aboard for now.

Cheers,
Mo
moses
 
Posts: 1102
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:18 pm
Location: Adelaide

Re: EU Theory and Archaeoastronomy dating

Unread postby jacmac » Thu Dec 31, 2015 9:13 am

If the number of "days" in a year changed from 360 to 365+ that could be simply a change in the spin rate of our planet about it's axis rather than a change in "orbit".
Of course, if both happened, calculations would be more complicated.
jacmac
 
Posts: 590
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 12:36 pm

Re: EU Theory and Archaeoastronomy dating

Unread postby moses » Thu Dec 31, 2015 5:21 pm

Hi jacmac,
I would have thought you would have asked the other way around. As in would not the change from 360 to 365+ simply be due to a change in Earth's orbit, because chnaging the orbit is real easy and requires little force, whereas changing the spin of Earth sounds very messy indeed.

It is the Velikovsky state of mind where it is realised that it is easy to change the orbit of a planet, compared with the other state of mind that thinks as the Earth fixed in it's orbit by some all-powerful force. Deeply psychological I feel.

Cheers,
Mo
moses
 
Posts: 1102
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:18 pm
Location: Adelaide

Re: EU Theory and Archaeoastronomy dating

Unread postby jacmac » Thu Dec 31, 2015 6:17 pm

Moses,

I AM of the Velikovsky state of mind. Although he might not have been correct in ALL his ideas, I hold him in high regard as a pioneer for bringing Catastrophism back into the light of reason.

I am suggesting that an interplanetary electrical discharge might PRIMARILY effect the axis of rotation of the earth; thus causing realignments of very old man made objects that no longer point to the correct directions.

You said:
because changing the orbit is real easy and requires little force, whereas changing the spin of Earth sounds very messy indeed.


An electric discharge could be a VERY LARGE FORCE, and a world wide catastrophic event would be a very messy event. I think there could have been a jolt to the earth that did not necessarily alter its orbit(very much), but did effected the spin axis.

I am on your teem, but suggest a different play. (to use a sport metaphor)

Happy New Year,
Jack
jacmac
 
Posts: 590
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 12:36 pm

Re: EU Theory and Archaeoastronomy dating

Unread postby LoneStarM » Thu Dec 31, 2015 8:40 pm

I intended to ask about the solar alignments. Would a change in orbit necessarily alter the axial tilt of the earth? I could see a change of orbit diameter and/or a change in the earth's rotational period without "ruining" the astronomical alignment if the tilt relative to the ecliptic stayed the same.

I was wondering if the construction date of an ancient astronomical site that still "works" is necessarily a proof that a catastrophic encounter occurred before that date, rather than after.

For example, if the result of the encounter was ONLY a change in the earth's orbital radius would alter the length of the tropical year. Similarly a change of ONLY the rotation period would change the tropical year. In either case Stonehenge, for example, "could care less," as long as the earths tilt relative to the plane of the ecliptic remained the same. Of course the number of solar days between events would change, but the stones would still be in the right places.
User avatar
LoneStarM
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:57 pm

Re: EU Theory and Archaeoastronomy dating

Unread postby moses » Fri Jan 01, 2016 3:00 am

<I am suggesting that an interplanetary electrical discharge might PRIMARILY effect the axis of rotation of the earth; thus causing realignments of very old man made objects that no longer point to the correct directions. jacmac>

OK, but that is a very different thing to the 360 day year change to the 365.25 year. The axis might wobble all over the place but after the wobble settles down it is very likely the Earth would be spinning at the same rate. To slow down the spin would require much more than just a wobble, although if the Earth did slow in spin then there would also be wobble involved.

Well there is the thunderbolt discharge which may well slow down the spin of the Earth, but what about a huge charge mainly discharging at the poles. This may not change the spin but could increase the overall charge of the Earth which probably would change the orbit of the Earth.

As you are on the Velikovsky team I suggest considering all the Velikovsky-type scenarios in what you write. The planets got in random orbits probably because of electrical currents so it is worth thinking along these lines when we are considering electric currents hitting the Earth.

Cheers,
Mo
moses
 
Posts: 1102
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:18 pm
Location: Adelaide

Re: EU Theory and Archaeoastronomy dating

Unread postby seasmith » Fri Jan 01, 2016 10:24 am

LoneStarM,..


The charge / spin-orbit argument-

https://books.google.com/books?id=m3RDC ... 3F&f=false
seasmith
 
Posts: 2815
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

Re: EU Theory and Archaeoastronomy dating

Unread postby LoneStarM » Sat Jan 02, 2016 1:18 pm

Thanks seasmith,

Very interesting information. There is much there to think about in addition to the charge/spin discussion. I understand the idea of conservation of angular momentum, but the idea that changing the mass of a rotating body (flywheel?) without changing it's dimensions could have a similar effect had not occurred to me.

Happy new year,
Jerry
User avatar
LoneStarM
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:57 pm

Re: EU Theory and Archaeoastronomy dating

Unread postby Grey Cloud » Sun Jan 03, 2016 2:51 pm

A change of 5 days over 360 wouldn't require much of a change in orbital or rotational speed surely? Put another way, it wouldn't require much of a catastrophe, if any. :o

Re the link posted by Seasmith: If the year increased by 5 days or so, what would be the effect on the length of the day? Would it have beeen noticable back then, i.e. without modern instrumentation?
If I have the least bit of knowledge
I will follow the great Way alone
and fear nothing but being sidetracked.
The great Way is simple
but people delight in complexity.
Tao Te Ching, 53.
Grey Cloud
 
Posts: 2477
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:47 am
Location: NW UK

Re: EU Theory and Archaeoastronomy dating

Unread postby JHL » Sun Jan 03, 2016 10:34 pm

Regardless of exact orbital period, is it likely that man created megalithic installations to fix in mind and history an alteration, probably catastrophic, of and in that period? It seems psychologically unlikely to me that megalithic sites were created, presumably at enormous cost in time and effort, to "establish growing seasons" or "worship the stars" et al, as so many modern presumptions go.

Given the ice core sample data shows a radical change in climate, with a large warming to present equilibrium, starting roughly when some of these sites seem to fix their dating to the new heavens about 10-12,000 BC, I always wondered if some trauma about that time was the shift from the Saturn sun to the present sun. I think if I was ancient man I'd have compelling reason to make a marker memorializing such an enormous event.
JHL
 
Posts: 158
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2014 3:11 pm

Re: EU Theory and Archaeoastronomy dating

Unread postby jacmac » Sun Jan 03, 2016 11:34 pm

LoneStarM said;
Would a change in orbit necessarily alter the axial tilt of the earth?

I don't think so.

I could see a change of orbit diameter and/or a change in the earth's rotational period without "ruining" the astronomical alignment if the tilt relative to the ecliptic stayed the same.

Yes to both.
But, there are some details that need to be discussed further, I think.
The tilt(of the earth axis) relative to the ecliptic gives us the seasons. When the spin axis is vertical to the ecliptic(in one direction), twice a year, we get the equinoxes. When it leans away or toward the sun we get the Solstices.

Taking one possible change at a time we get these possible outcomes:

A larger orbit circumference gives more days in a year.
A faster spin rate gives more days in a year.
An increase in the existing tilt angle, of the existing axis of rotation, to the ecliptic would move the Solstice alignments closer to the existing poles, but would not effect equatorial alignments on the equinox.
A change of direction of the existing tilt angle to the ecliptic would not change alignments but would change the time of the year, relative to the zodiac(dates), that the solstices and equinox's would occur.
Moving the axis of rotation within the earth body moves the poles and the equator, and thus moves the four cardinal directions and all the alignments. This may result in a new tilt angle to the ecliptic, or not.

I think the only way to change the alignment of a man made object that points to the east, at sunrise, on the equinox, for example, is for the axis of the earth to move within the earth. The places where the north and south poles are located on our planet must move to relocate the equator, or the equatorial alignments.

Any changes that might have happened could be a combination of various amounts of all these possibilities.

Moses said:
OK, but that is a very different thing to the 360 day year change to the 365.25 year. The axis might wobble all over the place but after the wobble settles down it is very likely the Earth would be spinning at the same rate. To slow down the spin would require much more than just a wobble, although if the Earth did slow in spin then there would also be wobble involved.

I agree there could be a period of wobble and then a settling down.
However, if the orbit is unchanged, and the number of "days" increases from 360 to 365+ the spin rate of the earth needs to increase. Within one year to get in more spins(days) we need to spin faster.


LoneStarM said
I was wondering if the construction date of an ancient astronomical site that still "works" is necessarily a proof that a catastrophic encounter occurred before that date, rather than after.


I agree.

That would be a very interesting study. I believe there are ancient sites that might give us evidence to support or deny possible dates of catastrophes. One problem I have found in my amateur and casual searches is that when sites are measured for alignments and they are a bit "off", the site is not studied further, or the data is not in the published articles.

One ancient site that seems to be in conflict with the dates offered by Dr. Velikovsky is:

http://www.newgrange.com/

It is said to be 5,000 years old and still lines up with the winter solstice.

So, the jury is still out.

Jack
jacmac
 
Posts: 590
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 12:36 pm

Precession of Equinoxes, Dating, and Ice Ages

Unread postby Sebastian Pan » Wed Jan 13, 2016 11:07 pm

The book that first made me aware of the incongruences of planetary history as taught by mainstream scholars was "Fingerprints of the Gods" by Graham Hancock. I was absolutely blown away by the hard evidence he offered of for an even preceding 10,500 B.C. with the age of the Pyramid complex at Giza, the fields of Frozen Mammoth in Siberia, the advanced age of the Sphinx along with the Pyramids with the evidence of water erosion, a topic taken up by It was earth-shaking.

Here is a dialogue by Hancock talking about his ideas. Obviously Hancock has his own tack on technology, aliens, and those sorts of directions, whereas it seems to me possible that a very different gravity and mass could have allowed the ancients to build such structures with much more ease.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUqdakkN_2g

What I am interested in is similar to a previous post about astronomically aligned temple sites. But it has to do specifically with the calculations of Axial precession by the ancients. Hancock is emphatic that the Giza complex was built both with a knowledge of precession as well as with the position of the Orion constellation in mind. The connection of Pyramids with the polar configuration is obviously important, as though they were trying to recreate the mountain of fire and light they had lost.

Is this a good clue to dating when the large event that kick-started the memorial myth-making epoch? Sometime shortly previous to 10,500 B.C.? It seems to me that it is. Then when would we date dissolution of the Polar configuration? It would have to be that the planetary instability period would have been completed by then, otherwise how did they have a knowledge of precession as they seemed to have been able to observe this in their sky-watching, terrified obsession?

Also, an add on question--Piers Corbyn has suggested that the Precessional tilting has something to do with the Ice Ages. How could this be true if we were previously locked in a Polar alignment with Saturn? If the Thunderbolts Project vision is correct, there would have to be a whole new way of interpreting the onsets of Ice Ages with the previous Saturn system. It seems likely that electrical input and intensity or lack of solar intensity with the Proto-Saturnian system would be the most likely candidate for weather trends such as that, as Corbyn holds now with the present system, but how precession would have had any role is beyond me. Am I understanding this?
Sebastian Pan
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2015 3:24 pm

Re: Archeology and Ancient Human Activity

Unread postby seasmith » Thu Jan 14, 2016 3:45 pm

The frozen carcass of a young male woolly mammoth discovered in 2012 in Siberia shows signs that it died from an attack by human hunters, according to a study published in Science today.
Thanks to radiocarbon dating — a technique that uses the properties of carbon to assign a date to organic materials inside bone — scientists were able to narrow down the timing of the attack.
They concluded that the mammoth lived and died at a latitude of 72 degrees north, about 45,000 years ago. And that's surprising because scientists previously thought that humans from that period hadn't made it past 55 degrees north — a latitude that isn't far north enough to be considered part of the Arctic Circle in Russia.

https://www.yahoo.com/tech/frozen-mammo ... 41661.html


What's the margin of error for radiocarbon dating ?
~
seasmith
 
Posts: 2815
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe - Planetary Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest