In 2005, the Holocene Impact Working Group was founded.
In 2007, the Geological Society published Special Publication 273, Myth and Geology, "the first professional textbook on the nascent subdiscipline of geomythology. Geomythology pairs geological evidence of catastrophic events and reports of such events encoded into the mythological lexicon of ancient societies."
Thomas King on Bruce Masse: Recent Cosmic Impacts on Earth: Do Global Myths Reflect an Ancient Disaster?
Masse, like many of today's archaeologists, isn't based in a museum or university, but works for a government agency--in his case, Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico. His day job involves managing the more than 2,000 archaeological sites on Laboratory lands--making sure they're not damaged by the Laboratory's operations. But his passion over the last few decades has been studying the archaeological and anthropological record of celestial phenomena and earthly catastrophes. In the Springer chapter he presents a startling picture of how such events may have been linked during the course of the Quaternary period--the last 2.6 million years.
Masse became interested in how cosmic phenomena like eclipses and comet encounters were perceived by ancient people while doing research in Hawaii in the late 1980s. The genealogical traditions of Hawaiian royalty, he found, were full of descriptions of things that happened in the sky--comet encounters, meteor showers, eclipses, supernovae. Some of the same events are described in historic European, Chinese, and Muslim records. Masse was able to plot dozens of precise matches between Hawaiian tradition and the astronomical observations of literate observers elsewhere in the world. The more he looked at mythology, the less mythical it appeared, where celestial phenomena were concerned.
When he thought objectively about how myths come to be, and who creates and sustains them, it made sense that they would encode impressive and hard-to-account-for events. "A myth," he says, "is an analogical story created by highly skilled and trained cultural knowledge specialists (such as priests or historians) using supernatural images in order to explain otherwise inexplicable natural events or processes." The priest doesn't just invent his story of the sun being eaten by a giant dog; he comes up with it as a means of explaining an eclipse that has his people scared out of their wits.
Masse began examining both the mythology and the archaeology of areas around the sites where asteroids or comets were known or suspected to have fallen to earth during the Quaternary, and especially during the last 11,000 years, known as the Holocene. Science is aware of at least twenty-seven known Quaternary impact sites, marked by craters and often the remnants of meteoritic iron and melted stone. Other impacts are known from the presence of glassy melts and tektites created by an impact or explosion in the atmosphere (an airburst). Virtually all are on land, where scientists have been able to record, study, and date them using radiocarbon age determination and other geophysical methods. Since the Earth's land masses make up only about a third of the planet's surface, it follows that in the last 2.6 million years there have been roughly 75 comet/asteroid strikes potentially big enough to leave physical signs on the ground, with even larger numbers striking the oceans. Few of these were big enough to have wiped out a civilization had one existed in the neighborhood, but each one could have killed a lot of our ancestors.
14 comments:
@OIG "it follows that in the last 2.6 million years there have been roughly 75 comet/asteroid strikes potentially big enough to leave physical signs on the ground, with even larger numbers striking the oceans."
A pretty good formula for recurrence interval of asteroid/comet impacts is this:
t-recur = (D/4) ^ 2.35
t-recur is recurrence interval in years
D is impactor diameter in meters
Thus, let's say we pick D = 100 meters to be the minimum size of an object that would cause considerable damage at the surface. Then t-recur = 1,900 years. Over the last 2.6 million years there have been 1,370 of these events, which is a lot more than the 75 being reported.
Your analysis is appreciated. Thx!
NEW PROFESSIONAL INTERDISCIPLINARY ENERGY
This is an exciting new group of scholars and scientists who are collaberating across scientific disciplinary lines to increase Man's understanding of extraterrestial impacts and events.
The interdisciplinary profile of the group is important because past efforts have been hampered by professional rigidity and assumptions about geophysical and astrophysical events.
I urge readers to check out the group's website and their members.
It's an excellent profile from a broad range of disciplines and a good cross-section of experience and energy.
Check out this world map of impact events.
(The quality of detail is quite good regarding seafloors, which goes back to my interest in Abiotic Oil theory. Oil exploration has barely scatched the surface.)
Also, the profile of Bruce Masse which OilIsMastery lighlights is important in this writer's estimation because Masse works at the Los Alamos National Laboratory.
Undoubtedly, Mr. Masse knows of Dr. Anthony Peratt and his work on plasma astrophysics, the study of electromagnetism in space, as Dr. Peratt also conducts research at the Los Alamos National Laboratory and sponsors a website called the Plasma Universe.
Dr. Peratt, also, has studied ancient human carved rock glifs for insight into electromagnetic forces acting on and around Earth in the historic past. Many of the carvings suggest intense electromagnetic forces in the time frame around 10,000 B.C.
While Mr. Masse's expertise is more as a curator and preservationist, his knowledge, experience, and professional associations is an invaluble contribution to the group.
I look forward to updates on their work.
THE DAY THE SOLAR WIND STOPPED
Actually, two days in May, 1999.
May 10-12, 1999.
While this event happened some time in the past, it is still an extraordinary astrophysical event.
Science@NASA, The Day the Solar Wind Disappeared, December 13, 1999 -- "From May 10-12, 1999, the solar wind that blows constantly from the Sun virtually disappeared -- the most drastic and longest-lasting decrease ever observed."
"Dropping to a fraction of its normal density and to half its normal speed, the solar wind died down enough to allow physicists to observe particles flowing directly from the Sun's corona to Earth. This severe change in the solar wind also changed the shape of Earth's magnetic field and produced an unusual auroral display at the North Pole."
"Data visualization of the X ray emissions over the North Pole during the "polar rain" of electrons on May 11, 1999. The emissions were detected by the PIXIE instrument on NASA's Polar spacecraft."
The NASA 'visualization' of the X rays over the North Pole.
What is striking about this event is that conventional astrophysics has no explanation for the event. The event contradicts what would be thought possible under the accepted "nuclear furnace" model of the Sun.
Astrophysicists were flummuxed, again.
Proponents of an electromagnetic model of the Sun were also surprised, but their model was not upsetted as was the conventional model.
NOT ALL METEORITES LEAVE AN IMPACT CRATER
Only the largest meteorites leave craters. Others "burn up" in the atmosphere.
Meteorite showers have been observed and documented in the historic past. The Korean Annals is one of the most reliable and long lasting documentations of meteorites (A.D. 1392-1863). Ancient Chinese astronomers also have recorded meteorites.
Many meteorite mysteries are solved when electromagnetism is considered.
Meteorites on Mars' surface are an interesting subject to consider when one thinks about it.
Why?
Because Mars has almost no atmosphere to cause friction, the conventional reason why meteorites are thought to give off light and heat when entering the Earth's atmosphere.
But since Mars has no atmosphere to speak of, there should be little reason for frictional heat to build up.
So how to explain this picture of a meteorite on Mars?
After all, the meteorite is pockmarked as if great heat was applied to it. So how did it get this heat if there was no atmosphere to cause friction?
Electrical stress is a possibility.
Picture of a meteorite on Mars.
THE FIRE CAME BY
This is the title of a book about the Siberian mystery, “Tunguska Event”, that I read many, many years ago first published in 1977.
Different possible "explanations" were offered, the event was shrouded in mystery due to its remoteness, the huge explosive force, and failure of initial investigation.
Now, it seems we might have a better handle on what caused it.
Tunguska appears to have been a meteorite that detonated in the air. Although, it will probably always be obscured by the mists of the Siberian forest.
If it was a meteorite "impact", there was no crater, then it was the largest meteorite "impact" in the last century. Certainly, the biggest explosive power.
What caused the "Tunguska event" to explode?
Could it have been electrical stress?
What if a shower of Tunguska fires came by?
Can't get enough of this unsolved mystery? Here is some more information.
IS IT POSSIBLE SCIENCE NEEDS TO RETHINK SO-CALLED IMPACT CRATERS?
The Kondyor Massif isn't considered an "impact" crater by geologists, but "an intrusion of igneous, or volcanic, rock that pushed up through overlying layers of sediment."
But is there another explanation?
Possibly.
"A six-kilometer-wide circle of rock contrasts with the surrounding topography in Northern Siberia. It looks like a crater formed by the impact of a stone from space or an extinct volcano, but neither explanation seems to fit more detailed observations."
is it just possible that the Kondyor Massif is the result of electromagnetic force?
Are there other geologic formations that have been mistaken for impacts, but are something else?
By the way, the Russian Government mines gold, silver, and platinum from within the "crater."
Other of these so-called impact craters are mined for the valuable minerals within...something to think about.
Here's an additional comment I have concerning the work of Bruce Masse and geomythology in general. There are a number of problems with this process which make it very difficult to come to any firm conclusions:
1.) Dating of the myths - for the most part the myths were passed down by word of mouth for centuries before they were eventually written down. Thus, the originating physical event (if any) may have occurred centuries to millennia before the first written version of it. It is quite likely that the storytellers in the generation who first wrote it down did not have a good understanding of what exactly took place.
2.) Correlating myth with physical evidence - Let's say you have two subsea impact craters. One dates from 4,000 BCE and the other one dates from 3,000 BCE. They are both in the Pacific Ocean. Let's say Pacific rim cultures have myths concerning a great flood with the first written version dating from 2,000 BCE. To which of these impact events do these myths apply? To the first one, to the second one, to both of them, or to neither? What technique does Masse have to determine the linkage of a myth to physical evidence?
So these are but a few of the issues which cloud both what Velikovsky was attempting to do and what Masse is attempting to do. It's a vast minefield filled with lots and lots of unseen mines.
@Anaconda "is it just possible that the Kondyor Massif is the result of electromagnetic force?"
BTW, just thought I'd let you know that your supposed link to the Kondyor Massif links to an article about Centaurus A. We all remember Centaurus A, now don't we? :)
@Anaconda "So how to explain this picture of a meteorite on Mars? After all, the meteorite is pockmarked as if great heat was applied to it. So how did it get this heat if there was no atmosphere to cause friction?"
Your link has the following very curious statement:
"Why do we find meteorites where there are no craters and craters where there are no meteorites? Is "impact" an obsolete idea to be replaced with "arc scar?""
This is edging very close to denying the existence of rocks that fall from outer space. Apparently some type of electric arc can generate these supposed "meteorites". Do you subscribe to that viewpoint, that there are no meteorites?
@ Tom Marking:
Sorry, here is the Kondyor Massif.
Tom, apparently, you didn't read the article underneath the picture of Centaurus A., too bad, because you would have read: "The researchers had expected to identify weak background radio noise from early star formation after the Big Bang. However, in the words of the principle investigator, Alan Kogut, 'Instead of the faint signal [of cosmic background radiation resultant after the "big bang"] we hoped to find, here was this booming noise six times louder than anyone had predicted.'"
"According to the investigators, there are no theories to explain the unusually high background signal level. But what if the space between galaxies is a source of synchrotron radio emissions?"
Apparently, Tom, you failed to explore the article:-)
More from the article:
"In determining background radio noise, the researches must subtract out known sources to arrive at a true background value. This is difficult, besides being rife with assumptions and potential errors. However, what if the space between galaxies is not “radio-neutral” and there’s a source they have not allowed for?"
"What if the galaxies are formed, powered and connected by Birkeland currents stretching billions of light-years? These field-aligned Birkeland currents are a predictable and inevitable formation of diffuse plasma. The currents are proposed to have magnitudes ranging up to a billion billion Amperes (Peratt, 1990)." (PDF)
Okay, I worked that side angle hard because it just happened to fall in my lap. But if you read the whole article it illustrates how tenuous reliance on Cosmic background radiation is for "proof" of the "Big bang" theory.
In fact, as the article states, the results of the research lends scientific support to the existence of intergalactic Birkeland currents, but because of the asssumptions of "modern" astronomy, one has to reinterpret the findings, and one can only do that if one has a solid grip on plasma/electromagnetic theory.
But few casual followers of "modern" astronomy are informed by the media of the ubiquitous presence of plasma/electromagnetic dynamics in near-space, like the NASA education project, or interplanetary space, let alone being given information that supports electromagnetic dynamics in deep space.
That is sad.
Anyway, back to your question: "Do you subscribe to that viewpoint, that there are no meteorites?"
No.
In a sense, I think you are misreading Electric Universe theory to come away with the idea that they don't believe in meteorites. If you asked Wallace Thornhill, the key Electric Universe theorist, he would acknowledge meteorites, but emphasize their electrical nature.
But I'll acknowledge Electric Universe theory does have the same problem that many "grand" theories have (including "big bang", "black hole", "dark" matter theory), and that is a tendency to claim every observed physical phenomenon and rewrite it to fit their theory, an over-reaching, if you will.
I do agree with the idea that meteorites are electrical in nature, i.e., have picked up electrical potential from transversing the solar electromagnetic field and so can electrically air detonate without hitting the ground as one solid meteorite, although, many meteorites do, indeed, hit the ground, and some leave a crater.
@Anaconda "The researchers had expected to identify weak background radio noise from early star formation after the Big Bang."
So you agree that the URL had nothing whatsoever to do with the Kondyor Massive? I wanted to read up on the Kondyor Massive to verify that you knew what the heck you were talking about but that link had nothing about it.
"I think you are misreading Electric Universe theory to come away with the idea that they don't believe in meteorites."
The quote was there in the URL you provided. I believe it was a Thunderbolts URL if I remember correctly. Just how did I misread the direct quote which was:
"Is "impact" an obsolete idea to be replaced with "arc scar?""
@ Tom Marking:
Before you jump to the conclusion that I was attempting to mislead you, and get you to read something off topic from what we were discussing, the situation was simple: I provided the web address for the general POD by mistake, rather than the specific URL for the Kondyor Massif when I placed the comment. Apparently, by the time you read the comment, the new POD had been posted.
I had no idea that was the case until you pointed it out and I had no idea when I placed the comment Thursday night February 19th what POD topic would be posted the next Monday. Looking at the date and time I placed the original Kondyor Massif comment should confirm the above explanation.
But when you pointed out my mistake on entering the link, I thought the new POD that you alluded to did follow up on parts of the discussion back at Bad Astronomy, so I thought I would take the opportunity to elaborate on the new POD.
I hope you noticed I did link the Kondyor Massif in my proceeding comment.
Tom Marking states: "Just how did I misread the direct quote which was: "Is "impact" an obsolete idea to be replaced with "arc scar?""
From one POD you draw the conclusion that Electric Universe theory doesn't support the existence of meteorites. I've read most of the PODs on meteorites, and the Electric Universe theory is much as I stated in my previous comment: "...he [Thornhill] would acknowledge meteorites, but emphasize their electrical nature."
[...]
"...i.e., [meteorites] have picked up electrical potential from transversing the solar electromagnetic field and so can electrically air detonate without hitting the ground as one solid meteorite, although, many meteorites do, indeed, hit the ground, and some leave a crater."
Electric Universe also hypothesizes, if I understand correctly, the idea that an electric arc can rise up from the ground and meet the meteorite as it's approaching the Earth's surface.
Of course, you are free to make your own interpretation.
Post a Comment