11,000 B.C. Extinction

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: 11,000 B.C. Extinction

Unread postby moses » Tue Jun 05, 2012 6:34 pm

Well pangea is very unlikely in my view, with instead the oceans undergoing EDM. So no continental drift nor Earth expansion. And having meteorites instead of planetary interactions does not thrill me much. And although it would be possible for the entire geological column to have begun formation only thousands of years ago, it seems that interstellar distances would be the main factor in major disturbances, and so at least tens of thousands of years are probably involved with long periods of stability.

I do see the geological record as being more useful than the historical or mythological evidence. And I do consider planetary science as the study of catastrophe and extinction.
Mo
moses
 
Posts: 1022
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:18 pm
Location: Adelaide

Re: 11,000 B.C. Extinction

Unread postby kell1990 » Mon Jun 11, 2012 6:21 pm

http://t.co/QYBs0B1x

Posted for the benefit of the group. It seems to show that some sort of impact was responsible for the dramatic temperature change @ around 13,000 bp.
kell1990
Guest
 

Re: 11,000 B.C. Extinction

Unread postby StevenJay » Mon Jun 11, 2012 6:38 pm

From the link:
"The very high temperature melt-glass appears identical to that produced in known cosmic impact events such as Meteor Crater in Arizona, and the Australasian tektite field," said Kennett.

"known," eh? :roll:

"The melt material also matches melt-glass produced by the Trinity nuclear airburst of 1945 in Socorro, New Mexico," he continued. "The extreme temperatures required are equal to those of an atomic bomb blast, high enough to make sand melt and boil."

I can think of another force that can produce those temps. :? Interesting that they noted that the same sort of melt-glass resulted from a non-impact senario, but didn't follow that line of thought any further.
It's all about perception.
User avatar
StevenJay
 
Posts: 506
Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 11:02 am
Location: Northern Arizona

Re: 11,000 B.C. Extinction

Unread postby kell1990 » Tue Jun 12, 2012 11:38 pm

StevenJay wrote:From the link:
"The very high temperature melt-glass appears identical to that produced in known cosmic impact events such as Meteor Crater in Arizona, and the Australasian tektite field," said Kennett.

"known," eh? :roll:

"The melt material also matches melt-glass produced by the Trinity nuclear airburst of 1945 in Socorro, New Mexico," he continued. "The extreme temperatures required are equal to those of an atomic bomb blast, high enough to make sand melt and boil."

I can think of another force that can produce those temps. :? Interesting that they noted that the same sort of melt-glass resulted from a non-impact senario, but didn't follow that line of thought any further.


Also from the link: "The presence of a thick charcoal layer in the ancient village in Syria indicates a major fire associated with the melt-glass and impact spherules 12,900 years ago," he continued. "Evidence suggests that the effects on that settlement and its inhabitants would have been severe."

There is one major problem with the impact hypothesis: Where's the crater (or craters)? AFAIK the present explanation is that the object hit a glacier, and thus left no crater at all. But if it hit a huge slab of ice, then how did it get hot enough to melt sand beneath the glacier and how did the remnants get scattered all over the place, from California to (at least) Syria ? Why is there a "thick charcoal layer" in Syria but not other places?

One way that can account for all the available evidence is a massive electrical arc (think of a huge welding rod striking a metallic plate) moving across the affected area.

I'd previously thought that this might have been caused by a passing celestial object that affected the area from about South 10 to 15 degrees latitude to about 45 degrees North latitude. Now I think that it couldn't have spread further South than the Equator because the curvature of the Earth would have shielded most of the discharge. This, of course, is speculation but it's a better explanation than an impact without a crater.
kell1990
Guest
 

Re: 11,000 B.C. Extinction

Unread postby sjw40364 » Mon Jun 25, 2012 8:58 pm

Whatever it was, and I tend to favor the plasma discharge theory it must have been more dramatic than is speculated. We have worldwide myths of catastrophic events and our oldest civilization ruins date back to around 10,000-15,000 BCE, and Dave Talbot presents a compelling case on myths and their relations to an electrically active past.
sjw40364
Guest
 

Re: 11,000 B.C. Extinction

Unread postby seasmith » Tue Jun 26, 2012 8:21 pm

Image
Luizi Structure, located in southeastern Congo


Satellite imagery suggested that Luizi might be an impact crater, but volcanoes and even salt domes can form structures that look like impact craters, so the researchers had to go into the field. They found shatter cones, and microscopic analysis of rock samples collected from the site revealed shocked quartz grains. Both shatter cones and shocked quartz are considered strong evidence of meteorite impacts.
Impact craters can be simple or complex. While simple craters have uncomplicated bowl shapes, complex craters sport features that can be counterintuitive, such as inner rings and central peaks. Geologists have linked both crater types to the action of high---



http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/v ... c=eoa-iotd
seasmith
 
Posts: 2585
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

Re: 11,000 B.C. Extinction

Unread postby slug » Wed Jun 27, 2012 4:16 am

moses wrote:The map of the stars etched into an 'air shaft' in the Great Pyramid strongly suggests that this pyramid was not built anytime near 2,500 BC. It is most likely a depiction of the sky when the pyramid was built.

I do not buy into this "star chart etching" interpretation of this surface.
slug
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 12:34 pm

Re: 11,000 B.C. Extinction

Unread postby moses » Thu Jun 28, 2012 3:08 am

I do not buy into this "star chart etching" interpretation of this surface.
slug

Then possibly some worker was trying to etch his name or just got a chance to do some doodling, or perhaps the blocks were actually made of cement and some child did some finger work on it before it set.
Mo
moses
 
Posts: 1022
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:18 pm
Location: Adelaide

Re: 11,000 B.C. Extinction

Unread postby webolife » Sat Jun 30, 2012 2:40 pm

I'm with slug on this one.
Isolated out of context markings, like clouds, and the marbling on your shower wall, can be imagined to represent any shape your mind can fixate on. The alleged fuzzy-marked alignments are inexact at best, and this inexactness is being used to conclude an exact message by people living thousands of years ago... imaginative and amazing, and utterly incredible.
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
User avatar
webolife
 
Posts: 2375
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: 11,000 B.C. Extinction

Unread postby kiwi » Thu Jul 19, 2012 5:32 pm

was pondering the other day as how the "proposed" distance of Alnilam (Orion Belt Star) was "figured" .... sorry to get all "sciency" here ... just curious , and suspect the Red-Shift is at the bottom of it :arrow:

Alnitak
Alnitak is approximately 736 light years away from Earth and, taking into consideration ultraviolet radiation, which the human eye cannot see, Alnitak is 100,000 times more luminous than the Sun.[2]
[edit]Alnilam
Alnilam is approximately 1340 light years away from earth and shines with magnitude 1.70. Considering ultraviolet light Alnilam is 375,000 times more luminous than the Sun.[3]
[edit]Mintaka
Mintaka is 915 light years away and shines with magnitude 2.21. Mintaka is 90,000 times more luminous than the Sun. Mintaka is a double star. Both stars orbit around each other every 5.73 days.[4]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion's_Belt
kiwi
 
Posts: 557
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2010 3:58 pm
Location: New Zealand

Mammoths and electrical discharge

Unread postby kell1990 » Mon May 27, 2013 11:10 am

http://www.world-science.net/othernews/130520_mammoth

..."Ei­ther a com­et scrap­ing the at­mos­phere or a me­te­or­ite slam­ming in­to the Earth caused glob­al-scale com­bus­tion, scorch­ing the air, melt­ing bed­rock and al­tered the course of Earth’s his­to­ry, ac­cord­ing to re­searcher Ken­neth Tanker­s­ley of the Uni­vers­ity of Cin­cin­nati."

"“Imag­ine liv­ing in a time when you look out­side and there are ele­phants walk­ing around in Cin­cin­nati,” Tanker­s­ley said. “But by the time you’re at the end of your years, there are no more ele­phants. It hap­pens with­in your life­time.” Tanker­s­ley and col­leagues de­scribe ev­i­dence for the event, es­ti­mat­ed to have oc­curred and to have af­fect­ed at least four con­ti­nents about 12,800 years ago, in the re­search jour­nal Pro­ceed­ings of the Na­tio­n­al Aca­de­my of Sci­en­ces.

"
Tanker­s­ley is an ar­chae­o­log­i­cal ge­ol­o­gist. He uses geolog­i­cal tech­niques, in the field and lab­o­r­a­to­ry, to solve ar­chae­o­log­i­cal ques­tions. He’s found what he said are an­swers to some of those ques­tions in Sheri­den Cave in Wy­an­dot Coun­ty, Ohio. It’s in that spot, 100 feet be­low the sur­face, where Tanker­s­ley has been stu­dy­ing geolog­i­cal lay­ers that date to the “Younger Dry­as” time pe­ri­od, about 13,000 years ago. It’s al­so one ar­ea where mam­moths roamed.

About 12,000 years be­fore that pe­ri­od, the Earth was at the Last Gla­cial Max­i­mum – the peak of the Ice Age. Mil­len­nia passed, and the cli­mate be­gan to warm. Then some­thing hap­pened that caused tem­per­a­tures to sud­denly re­verse course, Tanker­s­ley said, bring­ing about a cen­tu­ry’s worth of near-glacial cli­mate that marked the start of the ge­o­log­ic­ally brief Young­er Dry­as.

There are only about 20 ar­chae­o­log­i­cal sites in the world that date to this time pe­ri­od and only 12 in the Un­ited States, he added. “There aren’t many places on the plan­et where you can ac­tu­ally put your fin­ger on the end of the last ice age, and Sheri­den Cave is one of those,” he said.

Tanker­s­ley found ev­i­dence that some­thing came close enough to Earth to melt rock and pro­duce oth­er in­ter­est­ing ef­fects. Fore­most among the find­ings were car­bon spherules, ti­ny balls of car­bon formed when sub­stances burn at very high tem­per­a­tures. These show char­ac­ter­is­tics that in­di­cate their or­i­gin, wheth­er that’s from burn­ing coal, light­ning strikes, for­est fires or some­thing more ex­treme. Tanker­s­ley said the ones in his study could only have been formed from burn­ing rock.

The spherules al­so were found at 17 oth­er sites across four con­ti­nents – an es­ti­mat­ed 10 mil­lion met­ric tons’ worth – fur­ther sup­port­ing the idea that what­ev­er changed Earth did so on a mas­sive scale, he said.

“meltSome­thing came close enough to Earth and it was hot enough that it ed rock – that’s what these car­bon spherules are. In or­der to cre­ate this type of ev­i­dence that we see around the world, it was big,” Tanker­s­ley said, con­trast­ing the ef­fects of an event so mas­sive with the 1883 vol­can­ic ex­plo­sion on Kra­ka­toa in In­do­ne­sia. “When Kra­ka­toa blew its stack, Cin­cin­nati had no sum­mer,” he noted. “That’s just one lit­tle vol­ca­no blow­ing its top.”

Tanker­s­ley said while the cos­mic strike had an im­me­di­ate and deadly ef­fect, the long-term side ef­fects were far more dev­as­tat­ing – si­m­i­lar to Kra­ka­to­a’s af­termath but many times worse – mak­ing it un­ique in mod­ern hu­man his­to­ry. Tox­ic gas poi­soned the air and cloud­ed the sky, he ar­gues, caus­ing tem­per­a­tures to plum­met.

The roil­ing cli­mate would have chal­lenged plant and an­i­mal popula­t­ions, pro­duc­ing what Tanker­s­ley has clas­si­fied as “win­ners” and “losers” of the Young­er Dry­as. He said in­hab­i­tants of this time pe­ri­od had three choices: move to where they could make a si­m­i­lar liv­ing; down­size or ad­just their way of liv­ing to fit the cur­rent sur­round­ings; or die.

Hu­mans at the time were just as re­source­ful and in­tel­li­gent as we are to­day, he adds, and man­aged to fit among the first two groups. Mam­moths were not so lucky.

“Whether we want to ad­mit it or not, we’re liv­ing right now in a pe­ri­od of very rap­id and pro­found glob­al cli­mate change. We’re al­so liv­ing in a time of mass ex­tinction,” Tanker­s­ley said. “So I would ar­gue that a lot of the lessons for sur­viv­ing cli­mate change are ac­tu­ally in the past.”

Hu­mans of the Young­er Dry­as were hunter-gath­erers. When ca­tas­tro­phe struck, they found news ways and new places to hunt game and gath­er wild plants, he said. Ev­i­dence found in Sheri­den Cave shows that most of the plants and an­i­mals liv­ing there al­so en­dured. Of the 70 spe­cies known to have lived there be­fore the Young­er Dry­as, 68 were found there af­terward. The two that did­n’t make it were the gi­ant bea­ver and the flat-headed pec­ca­ry, a sharp-toothed pig the size of a black bear.

Tanker­s­ley al­so cau­tions that the pos­si­bil­ity of anoth­er mas­sive cos­mic event should not be ig­nored. Like earth­quakes, tsunamis and vol­ca­noes, these types of nat­u­ral dis­as­ters do hap­pen, and as his­to­ry has shown, it can be to dev­as­tat­ing ef­fect.

“One ad­di­tion­al cat­a­stroph­ic change that we of­ten fail to think about – and it’s be­yond our con­trol – is some­thing from out­er space,” Tanker­s­ley said. “It’s a re­minder of how frag­ile we are. Im­ag­ine an ex­plo­sion that hap­pened to­day that went across four con­ti­nents. The hu­man spe­cies would go on. But it would be dif­fer­ent. It would be a game chang­er.”

*
kell1990
Guest
 

Re: 11,000 B.C. Extinction

Unread postby seasmith » Tue May 28, 2013 5:55 am

Now, in one of the most comprehensive related investigations ever, the group has documented a wide distribution of microspherules widely distributed in a layer over 50 million square kilometers on four continents, including North America, including Arlington Canyon on Santa Rosa Island in the Channel Islands.

This layer - the Younger Dryas Boundary (YDB) layer - also contains peak abundances of other exotic materials, including nanodiamonds and other unusual forms of carbon such as fullerenes, as well as melt-glass and iridium. This new evidence in support of the cosmic impact theory appeared recently in a paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of the Sciences


But spherules do not form from cosmic collisions alone. Volcanic activity, lightning strikes, and coal seam fires all can create the tiny spheres. So to differentiate between impact spherules and those formed by other processes, the research team utilized scanning electron microscopy and energy dispersive spectrometry on nearly 700 spherule samples collected from the YDB layer.

The YDB layer also corresponds with the end of the Clovis age, and is commonly associated with other features such as an overlying "black mat" - a thin, dark carbon-rich sedimentary layer - as well as the youngest known Clovis archeological material and megafaunal remains, and abundant charcoal that indicates massive biomass burning resulting from impact.

The results, according to Kennett, are compelling...


http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Compr ... o_999.html
seasmith
 
Posts: 2585
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

Re: 11,000 B.C. Extinction

Unread postby kell1990 » Tue May 28, 2013 9:37 pm

May I say, "Congratulations". <moderator edit> But anyway it gets through the grapewvine, I can only congratuate you for having the courage to say what you saw, and then live to defend it. If only some of the other people who follow this blog are actually so lucky.

As nearly as I can tell, from my limited view of the Electric Universe, this is the first time a bona-fide organization ever accepted such a paper. I could be completely wrong about that, but I think that as of just a few months ago, anything that even resembled the Electric Universe was shunned. Progress is being made.

I'd invite your fellow readers to take a look at the post called "Mammoths and electrical discharge" for how far the EU has come.
Last edited by nick c on Wed May 29, 2013 7:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: inappropriate remark removed
kell1990
Guest
 

And there it is - Comet strike 10,950 BC

Unread postby JHL » Fri Apr 21, 2017 9:21 am

"Ancient stone carvings confirm how comet struck Earth in 10,950BC, sparking the rise of civilisations"

Experts at the University of Edinburgh analysed mysterious symbols carved onto stone pillars at Gobekli Tepe in southern Turkey, to find out if they could be linked to constellations.

The markings suggest that a swarm of comet fragments hit Earth at the exact same time that a mini-ice age struck, changing the entire course of human history.

[...]

Using a computer programme to show where the constellations would have appeared above Turkey thousands of years ago, they were able to pinpoint the comet strike to 10,950BC, the exact time the Younger Dryas begins according to ice core data from Greenland.

[...]

"If you consider that, according to astronomers, this giant comet probably arrived in the inner solar system some 20 to 30 thousand years ago, and it would have been a very visible and dominant feature of the night sky, it is hard to see how ancient people could have ignored this given the likely consequences."

The research is published in Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry.


Looking forward to where this goes in upcoming months and years.
JHL
 
Posts: 92
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2014 3:11 pm

Re: And there it is - Comet strike 10,950 BC

Unread postby Grey Cloud » Sat Apr 22, 2017 9:20 am

Seasmith already posted this here:
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16025&start=720#p119186

Link to the actual paper in my post below it.
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

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe - Planetary Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests