by Open Mind » Mon Jan 09, 2023 7:19 pm
nick C wrote "The medium of myth, while of value in the comparative reporting of similar events, is not of much use for precision dating. For that reason, I don't put any value on the 9000 year figure... or even the 900 year figure, for chronological reasons which I don't want to get into here."
Thanks very much for the reply. Instinctively, I have to agree logically its a reckless expectation of Solon and the priests to have any real chance of verification, so the value of those idea's of course falls to the broken telephone of human flaws of distracting motivations in interpretation. Plus, the Greeks were probably pretty smug, so I get it.
So, that would mean, that given the modern day anchored and proven dating of the YD, (at least as far as we can trust carbon dating hasn't been influenced by plasma events corrupting the carbon half life's), and slightly influenced by the curious coincidence of the "9" shared between one order of magnitude difference between 900 and 9000, that should allow for a reasonable presumption that 9000 was in fact accurate. But it sounds like this question goes deeper and has lots of moving parts maybe. Not asking for a full presentation.
Also re: "According to ancient sources, the order would even be correct. The mixture would receive radiation during the day, and polymerization would occur in the cooler night, particularly on dust particles. The end product would fall to the ground in the early morning. "
That's what I was looking for. So I can add that Velikovsky conjecture into the 'confirmed' column, or at least that the idea has not been debunked to date with enough certainty. Excellent.
I have a third idea I was tooling around with as well I'd like to ask you about. Regarding the events of the cataclysm.
Velikovsky seems to be painting a picture more close to the Crustal Displacement idea which implies a far more violent process. In his descriptions of the cataclysms he talks about mountains melting like wax and rolling, turning.
It was reminding me of a similar process. It sounded like he was interpreting the ancient descriptions and depictions as if they were describing witnessing the calving of ice chunks and the turning of icebergs. So I was thinking in terms of a cataclysm resulting from what is described as crustal displacement, and picturing the sub crustal magma layers rising in heat and melting from underneath, making the crust thinner during the process. Although, it didn't sound like the movement was exclusively crustal displacement, but it did seem to imply that when the magnetic poles were influenced and forced to turn the planet, that perhaps there was a sort of 'slosh momentum' of the crust from these relatively quick turns.
I imagined the compacted and more dense and heavier the crust might be underneath the weight of a mountain, and pictured that higher heat more quickly heating the under crust of less dense areas not overburdened by mountains might be melted earlier. From this I was picturing mountains having significantly more mass dipping down beneath the non magma melted 'under crust' and eventually wanting to crack free from its attachment points of the rest of the crust and spinning about its moment of inertia like an ice burg that begins to rebalance itself when its overall volume becomes out of balance with its own moment of inertia.
Do you think this could be a reasonable interpretation of those moments of 'mountains turning over'. I have heard about the curious observation of tops of mountains having far older fossils than the lower area's which has confused geologists.
nick C wrote "The medium of myth, while of value in the comparative reporting of similar events, is not of much use for precision dating. For that reason, I don't put any value on the 9000 year figure... or even the 900 year figure, for chronological reasons which I don't want to get into here."
Thanks very much for the reply. Instinctively, I have to agree logically its a reckless expectation of Solon and the priests to have any real chance of verification, so the value of those idea's of course falls to the broken telephone of human flaws of distracting motivations in interpretation. Plus, the Greeks were probably pretty smug, so I get it.
So, that would mean, that given the modern day anchored and proven dating of the YD, (at least as far as we can trust carbon dating hasn't been influenced by plasma events corrupting the carbon half life's), and slightly influenced by the curious coincidence of the "9" shared between one order of magnitude difference between 900 and 9000, that should allow for a reasonable presumption that 9000 was in fact accurate. But it sounds like this question goes deeper and has lots of moving parts maybe. Not asking for a full presentation.
Also re: "According to ancient sources, the order would even be correct. The mixture would receive radiation during the day, and polymerization would occur in the cooler night, particularly on dust particles. The end product would fall to the ground in the early morning. "
That's what I was looking for. So I can add that Velikovsky conjecture into the 'confirmed' column, or at least that the idea has not been debunked to date with enough certainty. Excellent.
I have a third idea I was tooling around with as well I'd like to ask you about. Regarding the events of the cataclysm.
Velikovsky seems to be painting a picture more close to the Crustal Displacement idea which implies a far more violent process. In his descriptions of the cataclysms he talks about mountains melting like wax and rolling, turning.
It was reminding me of a similar process. It sounded like he was interpreting the ancient descriptions and depictions as if they were describing witnessing the calving of ice chunks and the turning of icebergs. So I was thinking in terms of a cataclysm resulting from what is described as crustal displacement, and picturing the sub crustal magma layers rising in heat and melting from underneath, making the crust thinner during the process. Although, it didn't sound like the movement was exclusively crustal displacement, but it did seem to imply that when the magnetic poles were influenced and forced to turn the planet, that perhaps there was a sort of 'slosh momentum' of the crust from these relatively quick turns.
I imagined the compacted and more dense and heavier the crust might be underneath the weight of a mountain, and pictured that higher heat more quickly heating the under crust of less dense areas not overburdened by mountains might be melted earlier. From this I was picturing mountains having significantly more mass dipping down beneath the non magma melted 'under crust' and eventually wanting to crack free from its attachment points of the rest of the crust and spinning about its moment of inertia like an ice burg that begins to rebalance itself when its overall volume becomes out of balance with its own moment of inertia.
Do you think this could be a reasonable interpretation of those moments of 'mountains turning over'. I have heard about the curious observation of tops of mountains having far older fossils than the lower area's which has confused geologists.