"And they shall go into the holes of the rocks, and into the caves of the earth, for fear of the LORD, and for the glory of his majesty, when he ariseth to shake terribly the earth." -- Isaiah, 2:19
Why did people live in caves 10,000 years ago? What sort of catastrophes were they afraid of? Electric earthquakes? The expanding Earth? The stars falling on their heads? Meteor showers and meteorite impacts? Theomachy? Giants? The comet Venus? The disruption of the rotation of the Earth? The sun rising contrary to experience?
A wonderful article by Angelika Kotti at Ethnos newspaper "Οι πρώτοι... Αθηναίοι" about a pre-historic settlement of Athenians who used to hunt a species of horse which is extinct today:
They were food-gatherers, hunters and fishermen. Using hooks from bone and stone tools. They ate rabbits, deers, and even horses, cerials and legumes. These are the ancient residents of Attica. Their traces were located in the cavern that is found in Keratsini, The Cave of Schist, on the south-western edge of Mount Aigaleo, above the modern cemetery of the region.
The excavations archaeologists Fanis Mavridis and Lina Kormazopoulou and their team date the first habitation of the cavern from the eleventh up to the seventh millenium B.C., measuring roughly one millenium earlier than the first known pre-historic occupation of Attica.
An almost unique discovery for Attica and this opinion lights up the history of our countries Dark Ages period.
The dating done by method of radioactive carbon.
@ OilIsMastery:
ReplyDeleteRead this paper by Dr. Anthony Peratt. (PDF)
The diagrams and schematics are very important and you can get the gist of the paper from them without reading the whole paper.
If around 12,000 years ago Man was subjected to such a display you can bet he would move back into caves and be sore afraid.
Also, Tom Marking provided this URL. I'll link it. It does go against the comet theory for Tunguska, but the part to note is all the electromagnetic phenomenon the author catalogs.
Whether you agree or disagree with the author's conclusions, the amount of electromagnetic phenomenon both in the atmosphere and in the ground is remarkable.
The phenomenon are recognizable because many have been treated on this website.
Both papers are food for thought.
Anaconda,
ReplyDeleteThx. I'll have a look in a bit.
P.S.: That wasn't me who wrote that to you on Universe Today. Someone was impersonating me.
@ OilIsMastery:
ReplyDeleteNo worries, I could tell as soon as I read it.
In regards to Peratt's paper, the first half catologs the sites of the petrogliffs, but toward the end (it's a long paper, 30 pages)the paper focusses on the shape and strength of the Birkeland currents.
The paper (its part II of an earlier paper) is impeccably documented.
Check out figure 67:
The caption reads:
Fig. 67. Conceptual view of the Birkeland sheath filaments surrounding Earth (28 close pairs). The relativistic electron flow is downwards toward Antarctica. As shown in Figs. 63 and 64, the current bundle above Antarctica twists in counter-clockwise rotation. By convention, the Birkeland currents and ion flow is upwards toward the Arctic. Not yet completely resolved is a bend in the upper filament sheath that allows the upper plasmoids and column to be seen at northern latitudes.
The figure presents a Birkeland "cage" around the Earth.
The other figures provide perspectives that Man would have seen from various spots on the Earth's surface as recorded in the petrogliffs.
WARNING: Speculation
The "cage" looks like a tractor beam from Star Trek or something like that (if you could see a tractor beam).
But also consider this:
If Earth was subjected to a Birkeland current in an order of several magnitudes stronger than anything modern Man has seen, what was the solar winds effect on the rest of the solar system?
What effect would this have had on Venus?
Could Venus have been "rocked" in its orbit? What would its magnetotail have looked like?
Could the Moon with no magnetosphere to shield it been a "naked" cathode absorbing electromagnetic energy and subsequently discharging electromagnetic energy?
In what form would this discharge of electromagnetic energy from the Moon have taken?
Could this be what caused the Moon's craters?
Would these Birkeland currents hitting the Moon have been visible? What would they have looked like if visible?
Would the electrical discharge from the moon been visible? What would they have looked like if visible?
Louis Hissink has reported scientists' observations & measurements that suggest electromagnetic energy speeds up radioactive decay.
So, with this incredible electromagnetic pulse that according to Peratt went on for years (not really a pulse at all, except in terms of geological time spans) could radiocarbon dating been thrown way off?
What would have happened to the geo-electrical processes in the Earths's crust?
Think earthquakes, volcanic activity, electric weather, lightning storms and abiotic hydrocarbon production. Even effecting the expansion of the Earth by the addition of vast amounts of ions and electrons.
How would the Earth release the electromagnetic build up of energy?
And if this happened once, wouldn't have been likely to have happened before, possibly many times?
How would have the phenomenon cataloged in the Tunguska paper been effected by such super Birkeland currents.
What would the giant gas planets have looked like in the night sky?
Would they have lit up like mini suns?
Would Mars have suffered direct Birkeland currents without the protection of a magnetosphere?
How would these Birkeland currents have acted on Mars?
What would have been the effect on Mercury the closet planet to the Sun?
Could ancient Birkeland currents, says 500 million years ago and several orders of magnitude larger the the 10,000 B.C, event have looked like? Would they have the power to "tractor beam" the giant gas planets to more distant orbits?
Scientists hypothesize that observed "hot Jupiters" migrated inward to their stars because the "accretion disk" theory of planetary formation doesn't provide for gas giant planets forming close to a star. But the evidence in this solar system is that gas giants "migrated" away from the Sun and not in towards the Sun.
Gravity would not account for a gas giant migrating towards the Sun (in my opinion).
Electric Universe theory explains binary star systems and multiple star systems, gravity formation does not.
Electric Universe theory explains giant gas planets close to the Sun as a result of the star (Sun?) fissioning into two bodies to decrease the electrical stress. The new body can be either a star or a giant gas planet.
Are the rocky core planets of the inner solar system simply planets that had their gas ripped away in some unknown fashion (super, super, giant Birkeland currents)?
Such are the many questions raised by Dr. Anthony Peratt's paper.
OIM:
ReplyDeleteIs there a way for you to add a forum associated with this blog so we can start threads not associated with your posts? Would you have any interest in that?
@ OilIsMastery:
ReplyDeleteAfter you have an opportunity to review both papers to your satisfaction, let me know what your opinion is.
Seth,
ReplyDeleteI like the php template but I have no idea how to go about getting one, how much it would cost, and how much trouble it would be to maintain it. I suppose I can ask someone.
Anaconda,
ReplyDeleteI like the Peratt paper a lot. I'd need to read it again before I opine.
The Tunguska paper is interesting and highlights our ignorance but I think I tend to lean towards the e.t. explanation as opposed to the endogenous one based upon the eye-witness testimonies.
@ OilIsMastery:
ReplyDeleteThanks.