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 remelic » Fri May 14, 2010 1:28 pm

Krackonis wrote:
remelic wrote:Did the bolts originate from Jupiter, Saturn, Venus or the Sun? I'm unclear as to which planet you feel is the cause of discharge events like that. I know it happens but I'd like to know from where.


What I think you are interested in are sites dealing with Saturian Reconstructions. There are several different theories as to what happened and when. All have the same themes and similar events, but obviously Obviously, when dealing with this new paradigm you are trying to take the accounts as related in Mythology as literal events as seen in the ancient sky. The God-King Scenario is a good book, others have been related by David Talbot and others and can be found on youtube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTu602EoVho

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Clq-GiqvL9o[/url

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11g9wj22J8I

This site has helped me, though I don't subscribe to it in it's entirety.
http://www.saturniancosmology.org/

I hope this helps. It's not something that is discussed as much on the board as it attracts more fanciful mindsets and it becomes difficult to weed through the chaff to get to real, scientific, historic planetary reconstructions.


Understood. Thanks... regardless of the myths and what not, there is a lot of evidence that Earth was struck before so a bolt had to come from somewhere? Venus and Mars do have HUGE scaring that may even be proportional to each other and Earth could have gotten in the mix.. Another scenario is that the sun suffered a collapse and discharged throughout all the planets at the same time, creating other planets and moons, etc?

Just rambling but I know what you mean about the fanciful mindsets. ;)
Secrets of Edward Leedskalnin
“Like a flash of lightning and in an instant the truth was revealed.” - Nikola Tesla
Electricity = Magnetism x Speed of Light Squared... Thats what he really meant.
User avatar
remelic
 
Posts: 203
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 11:40 am
Location: Canada

Re: 11,000 B.C. Extinction

Unread postby bdw000 » Wed May 26, 2010 11:41 am

Grey Cloud wrote:I would argue that science doesn't get anything right


Here's a quote for you Grey Cloud:

"Science knows much . . . . but ignores, practically everything."
bdw000
 
Posts: 307
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2008 5:06 pm

Re: 11,000 B.C. Extinction

Unread postby Grey Cloud » Wed May 26, 2010 3:54 pm

bdw000 wrote:
Grey Cloud wrote:I would argue that science doesn't get anything right


Here's a quote for you Grey Cloud:

"Science knows much . . . . but ignores, practically everything."

Cheers. :)
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: 11,000 B.C. Extinction

Unread postby StefanR » Fri May 28, 2010 12:03 pm

I was a little confused to either place this here or in a GreenHouseEffect/GlobalWarming/ClimateChange/ClimateScience-thread. :?

As Mammoths Died Out, Earth Chilled
As massive grazing animals were killed off by early human hunters, methane levels dropped, contributing to a chilling planet.

The rapid decline of mammoths and other megafauna after humans spread across the New World may explain a bone-chilling plunge in global temperatures some 12,800 years ago, researchers reported Sunday.
The 100-odd species of grass-eating giants that once crowded the North American landscape released huge quantities of methane -- from both ends of their digestive tracks.
As a heat-trapping greenhouse gas, methane is 30 times more potent than carbon dioxide (CO2).
It was not enough to trigger runaway global warming. But when all that gaseous output suddenly tapered off, it caused or at least contributed to a prolonged freeze known as the Younger Dryas cold event, they argue.
If so, the "Anthropocene epoch" -- the era of major human impacts on Earth's climate system -- began not with the industrial revolution in the 1800s, but the large-scale influx of two-legged predators to the Americas more than 13,000 years earlier.Calculations by a trio of researchers led by Felisa Smith of the University of New Mexico, published in Nature, show how all the pieces of this previously unsolved puzzle might fit together.
Extrapolating from data on cows and other modern-day ruminants, the scientists estimated the total methane output of pre-historic megafauna at nearly 10 trillion grams per year.
At the same time, ice-core samples reveal that an abrupt drop in atmospheric methane levels of 180 parts per billion by volume (ppbv) coincides with both the virtual extinction of these gas-gushing herbivores and the onset of the deep chill that followed.
Greenland ice cores from other periods show that a reduction in methane levels of 20 ppbv corresponds to a reduction in temperature of roughly 1.0 degrees Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit).
That would add up to a decrease of 9.0 to 12.0 C (16 to 22 F), a near-perfect match with the Younger Dryas cold snap.
"We find that the loss of megafauna could explain 12.5 to 100 percent of the atmospheric decrease in methane observed," the researchers said.
The theory is bolstered by the fact that the plunge in concentration was two-to-four times faster than the five other largest methane drops during the last 500,000 years, suggesting a unique confluence of factors.
"The megafaunal extinction is the earliest catastrophic event attributed to human activity," the study concluded.
"We thus propose that the onset of the 'Anthropocene' [epoch] should be recalibrated to 13,400 years before present, coincident with the first large-scale migrations of humans into the Americas."

http://news.discovery.com/animals/mammoths-megafauna-global-freeze.html
The illusion from which we are seeking to extricate ourselves is not that constituted by the realm of space and time, but that which comes from failing to know that realm from the standpoint of a higher vision. -L.H.
User avatar
StefanR
 
Posts: 1371
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:31 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: 11,000 B.C. Extinction

Unread postby Grey Cloud » Fri May 28, 2010 1:43 pm

Hmmn.
Several points come to mind.
1. It is not universally accepted by the scientific community that humans were responsible for the megafauna extinction. Every other month sees an article which states that 'new research states humans were/were not responsible'.

2. The megafauna was not restricted to the Americas. How then does this piece of 'science' account for the demise of the megafauna elsewhere in the world? Bear in mind that, e.g. Eurasia had humans living there and that these humans hunted many of the megafauna species without exterminating them, whereas a relatively small number of alleged migrants into N. America via the Bering landbridge supposedly went through the animals like a dose of salts. [The experts are still not united on whether this migration took place]

3. If the megafauna died off due to humans then what happened to the megaflora? Would the flora not have thrived, at least in the short-term, in the absence of the herbivores? I say in the short-term beccuase, presumably, more flora sucking carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere would have contributed to the already methane-starved atmosphere thus accelerating the global-cooling.

One of the commenters on the article asked the obvious question of 'how did the planet warm up again'?
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: 11,000 B.C. Extinction

Unread postby StefanR » Sat May 29, 2010 7:03 am

Grey Cloud wrote:Hmmn.
Several points come to mind.
1. It is not universally accepted by the scientific community that humans were responsible for the megafauna extinction. Every other month sees an article which states that 'new research states humans were/were not responsible'.
Indeed, but this research was based on calculations from extrapolations of measured flatulations. Such fine scientific procedures ought to stand for some rigor of the conclusions or would you say it is al based on hot gas?

2. The megafauna was not restricted to the Americas. How then does this piece of 'science' account for the demise of the megafauna elsewhere in the world? Bear in mind that, e.g. Eurasia had humans living there and that these humans hunted many of the megafauna species without exterminating them, whereas a relatively small number of alleged migrants into N. America via the Bering landbridge supposedly went through the animals like a dose of salts. [The experts are still not united on whether this migration took place]
The Maori are said to be responsible for hunting the Moa, does that count? And perhaps the Neanderthals and other relatives in other parts of Eurasia first had to be conquered(bringing democracy)? And maybe the huge speed with which the migrants of North America moved to the South cost a lot of energy, so trade routes had to be opened with the Asian relatives so cheap imports could alleviate the huge consumption. Though these are just expert opinions as you know, I'm really not sure.

3. If the megafauna died off due to humans then what happened to the megaflora? Would the flora not have thrived, at least in the short-term, in the absence of the herbivores? I say in the short-term beccuase, presumably, more flora sucking carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere would have contributed to the already methane-starved atmosphere thus accelerating the global-cooling.
Megaflora?

One of the commenters on the article asked the obvious question of 'how did the planet warm up again'?
Easy....:
Carbon 'burp' from deep ocean kick-started global warming at end of last Ice Age
A huge carbon "burp" from the sea may have ended the last Ice Age 18,000 years ago, scientists believe.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/7772399/Carbon-burp-from-deep-ocean-kick-started-global-warming-at-end-of-last-Ice-Age.html
;)
The illusion from which we are seeking to extricate ourselves is not that constituted by the realm of space and time, but that which comes from failing to know that realm from the standpoint of a higher vision. -L.H.
User avatar
StefanR
 
Posts: 1371
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:31 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: 11,000 B.C. Extinction

Unread postby Grey Cloud » Sat May 29, 2010 3:15 pm

Megaflora.
Detrended Correspondence Analysis indicates that there is no environmental gradient apparent within this community. This extremely well-sampled and laterally extensive leaf site supports the view that the late Paleocene (Tiffanian) flora of the northern Rockies is depauperate compared to megafloras of the Late Cretaceous and late Paleocene (Clarkforkian).http://palaios.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/ ... t/12/5/439
I can't put it plainer than that.:ugeek: Tulips the size of skyscrapers. :shock:
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: 11,000 B.C. Extinction

Unread postby StefanR » Thu Jun 03, 2010 2:05 am

Grey Cloud wrote:Megaflora.
Detrended Correspondence Analysis indicates that there is no environmental gradient apparent within this community. This extremely well-sampled and laterally extensive leaf site supports the view that the late Paleocene (Tiffanian) flora of the northern Rockies is depauperate compared to megafloras of the Late Cretaceous and late Paleocene (Clarkforkian).http://palaios.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/ ... t/12/5/439
I can't put it plainer than that.:ugeek: Tulips the size of skyscrapers. :shock:

I think that those tulips are already pushing up daysies :cry:
From what get from the term Megaflora, is that it might be tempting to equate them to the idea of Megafauna, where the animals are seemingly bigger than similar species nowadays, but it is not a term used as such for plants. In the plant kingdom it seems to refer more to just sizeable plants, such as shrubs and trees, not that they are enormous trees larger than modern trees. As a matter of fact plants have never been larger than the tallest trees that are alive now. A similar situation one has with Megafossils, it is not that the are gargantuan sized fossils but just that one can cleary see them without needing magnification.
And it is perhaps not that megafauna was larger, but the fauna these days is smaller.
As per the link you gave, it is refering to ages far more remote than the last glacial transsition.
The illusion from which we are seeking to extricate ourselves is not that constituted by the realm of space and time, but that which comes from failing to know that realm from the standpoint of a higher vision. -L.H.
User avatar
StefanR
 
Posts: 1371
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:31 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: 11,000 B.C. Extinction

Unread postby Grey Cloud » Thu Jun 03, 2010 2:07 pm

Stefan'
As per the link you gave, it is refering to ages far more remote than the last glacial transsition.
Sorry about that. It dawned on me later. :oops:

I'm thinking of megaflora in the sense that the average size of the flora was greater than the average size of today's flora. Put another way, the food was to the same scale as the diners.

Even without the 'mega', my point still stands - if the herbivores died out because of man, then what caused the flora to go.
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: 11,000 B.C. Extinction

Unread postby StefanR » Thu Jun 03, 2010 3:32 pm

Grey Cloud wrote:Stefan'
As per the link you gave, it is refering to ages far more remote than the last glacial transsition.
Sorry about that. It dawned on me later. :oops:

I'm thinking of megaflora in the sense that the average size of the flora was greater than the average size of today's flora. Put another way, the food was to the same scale as the diners.

Even without the 'mega', my point still stands - if the herbivores died out because of man, then what caused the flora to go.

Well the link giving these dates wouldn't have to be a problem, at least to me, if it showed that there was something like you propose, flora that was up to scale with the fauna. But there is just no such thing.
And there lies the difficulty for me, how to disprove a negative, and just as the WMD's, they are just not there.

And how about the flora in the time of the dinosaurs? Was that flora even bigger?
In my view the problem probably is solvable comparing it to fastfood-eaters. It's not the size of the burgers that make them grow some belly it is the amount of burgers (and of course the bad quality of the food that kills them but that is beside the point).
If the herbivores died out because of man, there still was the transition from glacial to inter-glacial. A changing habitat makes for different organisms. And it is not that the flora has to go but "moving" to different lattitudes is a survival trick that plants can use because they use polination and spores and seeds that can "travel".
The flora never left extinction-wise, the pre-holocene era flora is still here on earth it just moved location.
The illusion from which we are seeking to extricate ourselves is not that constituted by the realm of space and time, but that which comes from failing to know that realm from the standpoint of a higher vision. -L.H.
User avatar
StefanR
 
Posts: 1371
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:31 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: 11,000 B.C. Extinction

Unread postby webolife » Thu Jun 03, 2010 4:40 pm

I think I agree with you on this Stefan. In general the flora found in the fossils is very similar to that found today, aside from the worldwide distribution of tropical genera. Vegetation was more abundant and prevalent on all continents in all zones. But whatever catastrophic events led to the demise of the 95% or so of fauna species, led to the reduction also of many floral habitats. This has emplaced stiffer competition for resources among remaining fauna, which is where humans come in... we have the ability to either increase or decrease biodiversity... with regard to extinctions in N Amer, we need to keep in mind the general geology of the time, the state of the crust, and be cautious about reliance on radiometric dates. Prior to a few thousand years ago, the americas may have been attached or closely so with europe and africa [lowercase to deemphasize political ids]. Worldwide extinction events were followed on different continents by more unique regional catastrophes as the changing crust ground to a near halt. Astronomical factors declined, and the world climate has been in rebound ever since.
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: 2537
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: 11,000 B.C. Extinction

Unread postby seasmith » Wed Oct 06, 2010 8:19 pm

Matching previous finds on land...

Oct 6th, 2010
Source: European Commission


Discovery of nanodiamonds proves comet struck Earth 13 000 years ago

An international team of scientists has discovered nanosize diamonds in the Greenland ice sheet, according to a study presented in the Journal of Glaciology. The diamonds, which number in the trillions and are so tiny that they can only be observed with special, highly magnifying microscopes, add credence to the controversial hypothesis that fragments of a comet struck North America and Europe approximately 12900 years ago.
'There is a layer in the ice with a great abundance of diamonds,' said co-author James Kennett, Professor Emeritus in the Department of Earth Science at the University of California (UC) in Santa Barbara, US. 'Most exciting to us is that this is the first such discrete layer of diamonds ever found in glacial ice anywhere on Eart
h, including the huge polar ice sheets and the alpine glaciers,' added the scientist, who is considered by many of his peers to be an early founder of marine geology and paleoceanography.


http://www.nanowerk.com/news/newsid=18376.php?
utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+nanowerk%2FagWB+%28Nanowerk+Nanotechnology+News%29&utm_content=Yahoo%21+Mail
seasmith
 
Posts: 2815
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

Re: 11,000 B.C. Extinction

Unread postby Aveo9 » Thu Oct 07, 2010 1:42 am

MarcusDrake wrote:
Why is a date of 10,000 BCE such fantasy? Last I checked the Earth was over 4.5 billion years old. Science may not get everything right, but there are certain things that are undeniable. The half-life of elements being one of them.


It turns out that the half-life of a radioactive isotope changes in the presence of a changing electric field. Given the massive electrical interactions that are presumed to have occurred between the Earth and other planets within the last 10,000 years, radiometric dating can't be relied upon for dates earlier than the most recent interaction.

As if that wasn't enough, one of the assumptions behind cabon dating is that the amount of carbon in the atmosphere has remained roughly constant over the Earth's history. However core samples from some of the oldest trees in the world (4000 year old redwoods!) have shown that there were several massive fluctuations in atmospheric carbon levels in the first thousand or so years of those trees' lives. When a tree develops a new ring, the atmospheric carbon present in the previous ring is locked into that ring. You can see how much carbon was in the atmosphere in a certain year in that part of the world by cutting into a tree and analysing the amount of carbon in the relevant ring.

That's two scientific reasons why radiometric dating (and carbon dating in particular) are about as reliable as Fox News beyond about 700 BC.


I also read somewhere that the rate of decay of an isotope is proportional to the speed of light, which is slowing down. I read that the measurements of the speed of light over the last few hundred years can be mapped to a cosecant-squared curve (which looks roughly like a right angle). Following the curve back would indicate that the speed of light was many orders of magnitude faster several thousand years ago. I haven't been able to verify if this is true though, but if it is then it would indicate that half-lives were much, much shorter in the past!
"If opposite poles attracted each other, they would be together in the middle of a magnet instead of at its ends"
-- Walter Russell
User avatar
Aveo9
 
Posts: 69
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2010 4:17 pm

Re: 11,000 B.C. Extinction

Unread postby webolife » Wed Oct 13, 2010 12:45 am

Half-life questions aside, the initial conditions of the radioactive materials are highly controversial, and totally built upon assumptions which are not verified, eg. level of CO2 mixing in past atmosphere and rate of consumption by the biosphere, also the relative abundance/ratio of original daughter/parent elements is always assumed to be virtually zero, despite this state never being found anywhere in the universe, or at least in this solar corner of it. Fact of the matter is that U/Pb ratio in U ores is rarely found very far from 1:1. If this were or is original, then radiometrically the origin of the earth and solar system could be practically yesterday. Sorry for the slight diversion from thread topic.
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: 2537
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: 11,000 B.C. Extinction

Unread postby kiwi » Wed Oct 13, 2010 4:46 am

anyone seen these before? ... some great photographs

Abstract: We have discovered what appear to be micrometeorites imbedded in seven Alaskan Mammoth tusks and a Siberian bison skull. The micrometeorites apparently shattered on impact leaving 2-5 mm hemispherical debris patterns surrounded by carbonized rings. Multiple impacts are observed on only one side of the tusks and skull consistent with the micrometeorites having come from a single direction. The impact sites are strongly magnetic indicating significant iron content. We analyzed several imbedded micrometeorite fragments from both tusks and skull with Laser Ablation Inductively-Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry (LA-ICP-MS) and X-ray Fluorescence (XRF). These analyses confirmed the high iron content and a uniform composition highly enriched in nickel and depleted in titanium. The Fe/Ni and Fe/Ti ratios are comparable to urelite meteorites and are unlike any terrestrial sources. Prompt Gamma-ray Activation Analysis (PGAA) of a micrometeorite extracted from the bison skull indicated it contained ~0.4 mg of iron, in agreement with a micrometeorite ~1 mm in diameter. Several tusks have an average radiocarbon age of ~33 ka. This age coincides with sudden increases in global radiocarbon ~35 ka agoa and 10Be ~32 ka agob, the Mono Lake geomagnetic excursion ~34 ka agoc, and significant declines in Beringian bison, horse, brown bear, and mammoth populations and genetic diversity <36 ka agod. The bison skull shows evidence of new bone growth over the micrometeorite impact sites indicating the animal survived the bombardment and is dated at ~26 ka which is younger than the tusks. This age is consistent with exposure of the bison to an enriched source of radiocarbon following the impact. It appears likely that the impacts, cosmogenic isotope increases, magnetic excursion, and population declines are related events (Occam’s razor), although their precise nature remains to be determined.
http://ie.lbl.gov/mammoth/impact_old.html
kiwi
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2010 3:58 pm
Location: New Zealand

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe - Planetary Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests