Wednesday, February 18, 2009

Phaeton, Comets, and The Impacts



Is science myth or is myth science? I'm so confused:

PNAS (Oct 07): Evidence for an extraterrestrial impact 12,900 years ago that contributed to the megafaunal extinctions and the Younger Dryas cooling.

A carbon-rich black layer, dating to ≈12.9 ka, has been previously identified at ≈50 Clovis-age sites across North America and appears contemporaneous with the abrupt onset of Younger Dryas (YD) cooling. The in situ bones of extinct Pleistocene megafauna, along with Clovis tool assemblages, occur below this black layer but not within or above it. Causes for the extinctions, YD cooling, and termination of Clovis culture have long been controversial. In this paper, we provide evidence for an extraterrestrial (ET) impact event at ≅12.9 ka, which we hypothesize caused abrupt environmental changes that contributed to YD cooling, major ecological reorganization, broad-scale extinctions, and rapid human behavioral shifts at the end of the Clovis Period. Clovis-age sites in North American are overlain by a thin, discrete layer with varying peak abundances of (i) magnetic grains with iridium, (ii) magnetic microspherules, (iii) charcoal, (iv) soot, (v) carbon spherules, (vi) glass-like carbon containing nanodiamonds, and (vii) fullerenes with ET helium, all of which are evidence for an ET impact and associated biomass burning at ≈12.9 ka.
New Scientist (May 07): Firestorm from space wiped out prehistoric Americans.

THE Clovis people of North America, flourishing some 13,000 years ago, had a mastery of stone weaponry that stood them in good stead against the constant threat of large carnivores, such as American lions and giant short-faced bears. It's unlikely, however, that they thought death would come from the sky.

According to results presented by a team of 25 researchers this week at the American Geophysical Union meeting in Acapulco, Mexico, that's where the Clovis people's doom came from. Citing several lines of evidence, the team suggests that a wayward comet hurtled into Earth's atmosphere around 12,900 years ago, fractured into pieces and exploded in giant fireballs. Debris seems to have settled as far afield as Europe.

Jim Kennett, an oceanographer at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and one of the team's three principal investigators, claims immense wildfires scorched North America in the aftermath, killing large populations of mammals
New Scientist (Dec 07): Ancient flood brought Gulf Stream to a halt .

It was the biggest climate event of the last 10,000 years and caused the most dramatic change in the weather since humans began farming. And it may yet hold important lessons about climate change in the 21st century.

Just over 8000 years ago, a huge glacial lake in Canada burst, and an estimated 100,000 cubic kilometres of fresh water rushed into the North Atlantic. Researchers now say they know for sure that this catastrophic event shut down the Gulf Stream and cooled parts of the northern hemisphere by several degrees for more than a hundred years.

They say the findings show modelling studies are right to suggest that something similar could happen with equal abruptness
Science (Jan 09): Nanodiamonds in the Younger Dryas Boundary Sediment Layer.

We report abundant nanodiamonds in sediments dating to 12.9 ± 0.1 thousand calendar years before the present at multiple locations across North America. Selected area electron diffraction patterns reveal two diamond allotropes in this boundary layer but not above or below that interval. Cubic diamonds form under high temperature-pressure regimes, and n-diamonds also require extraordinary conditions, well outside the range of Earth's typical surficial processes but common to cosmic impacts. N-diamond concentrations range from 10 to 3700 parts per billion by weight, comparable to amounts found in known impact layers. These diamonds provide strong evidence for Earth's collision with a rare swarm of carbonaceous chondrites or comets at the onset of the Younger Dryas cool interval, producing multiple airbursts and possible surface impacts, with severe repercussions for plants, animals, and humans in North America.
National Geographic (Jan 09): Diamonds Link Comets to Killer Freeze 13,000 Years Ago.

Diamond dust found in 12,900-year-old sediments at six North American sites boosts evidence of Earth's impact with a swarm of comets at that time, researchers reported today.

The discovery supports the theory that an impact with an extraterrestrial object may have contributed to the disappearance of large mammals and the Clovis culture of prehistoric humans, the scientists say.

Scientists proposed in 2007 that a cosmic impact, possibly by multiple airbursts of comets, set off a 1,300-year-long cold spell known as the Younger Dryas, fragmented the prehistoric Clovis culture and led to the extinction of a large range of animals, including mammoths, across North America.

In today's issue of the journal Science, a team led by the University of Oregon's Douglas J. Kennett, a member of the 2007 research team, reports finding billions of microscopic-size diamonds in sediments in the six locations (see map below) during digs funded by the National Science Foundation.

"The nanodiamonds that we found at all six locations exist only in sediments associated with the Younger Dryas Boundary layers, not above it or below it," said Kennett, a University of Oregon archaeologist, in a university press release.

Kennett and colleagues say the only obvious explanation for the concentration of nanodiamonds (seen in the image on the left) is that they were created in the high-energy environment of an impact by a comet or other extraterrestrial object.

"These discoveries provide strong evidence for a cosmic impact event at approximately 12,900 years ago that would have had enormous environmental consequences for plants, animals and humans across North America."
Washington Post (Jan 09): Gems Point to Comet as Answer to Ancient Riddle.

Something dramatic happened about 12,900 years ago, and the continent of North America was never the same. A thriving culture of Paleo-Americans, known as the Clovis people, vanished seemingly overnight. Gone, too, were most of the largest animals: horses, camels, lions, mammoths, mastodons, saber-toothed cats, ground sloths and giant armadillos.

Scientists have long blamed climate change for the extinctions, for it was 12,900 years ago that the planet's emergence from the Ice Age came to a halt, reverting to glacial conditions for 1,500 years, an epoch known as the Younger Dryas.

In just the last few years, there has arisen a controversial scientific hypothesis to explain this chain of events, and it involves an extraterrestrial calamity: a comet, broken into fragments, turning the sky ablaze, sending a shock wave across the landscape and scorching forests, creatures, people and anything exposed to the heavenly fire.

Now the proponents of this apocalyptic scenario say they have found a new line of evidence: nanodiamonds. They say they have found these tiny structures across North America in sediments from 12,900 years ago, and they argue that the diamonds had to have been formed by a high-temperature, high-pressure event, such as a cometary impact.

27 comments:

Tom Marking said...

It seems like some of the dates don't match:

http://www.answers.com/topic/clovis

"Clovis culture, a group of Paleo-Indians (see Americas, antiquity and prehistory of the) known through artifacts first excavated in the early 1930s near Clovis, N.Mex. The artifacts, including chipped flint points known as Clovis points and a variety of additional stone tools, were found along with remains of large mammals, particularly extinct mammoths. The remains, which date from 10,000 to 9000 B.C., were found widely in North America, especially on the Great Plains. Like Folsom points (see Folsom culture), Clovis points show a distinct lengthwise groove (known as fluting) on each face that served to enhance the hafting to spear shafts. Clovis groups are the earliest definitively dated human populations in the Americas, and the earliest known big-game hunters."

If the Clovis people were wiped out by this asteroid strike 12,900 years ago (c. 10,900 BCE) then what are their spear points doing at 9,000 BE, almost two thousand years later?

OilIsMastery said...

Tom,

"It seems like some of the dates don't match."

If you're interested in reading more about dates that don't match I highly recommend Immanuel Velikovsky's work on the subject -- Ages In Chaos as well as The Dark Age of Greece.

"If the Clovis people were wiped out by this asteroid strike 12,900 years ago (c. 10,900 BCE) then what are their spear points doing at 9,000 BE, almost two thousand years later?"

There were some survivors obviously just as some island mammoths and giants survived.

The fact is humans exist on planet Earth. Are you saying that because humans exist therefore there are no such things as meteorite impacts?

Louis Hissink said...

Dating problems arise from the use of radiogenic decays - Radiocarbon dating for example.

The following abstract (I have a pdf of the paper) shows that radiogenic decay is not a constant, and in terms of EU theory, radioactivity is affected by changes in the electric field.

Hence the problematical dating.

Evidence for Correlations Between Nuclear Decay Rates and Earth-Sun Distance.

Jere H. Jenkins,1 Ephraim Fischbach,1, ∗ John B. Buncher,1 John T. Gruenwald,1 Dennis E. Krause,1, 2 and Joshua J. Mattes1
1Physics Department, Purdue University, 525 Northwestern Avenue, West Lafayette, Indiana, 47907, USA
2Physics Department, Wabash College, Crawfordsville, Indiana, 47933, USA (Dated: August 25, 2008)

Unexplained periodic fluctuations in the decay rates of 32Si and 226Ra have been reported by groups at Brookhaven National Laboratory (32Si), and at the Physikalisch-Technische-Bundesandstalt in Germany (226Ra). We show from an analysis of the raw data in these experiments that the observed fluctuations are strongly correlated in time, not only with each other, but also with the distance between the Earth and the Sun. Some implications of these results are also discussed,
including the suggestion that discrepancies in published half-life determinations for these and other nuclides may be attributable in part to differences in solar activity during the course of the various experiments, or to seasonal variations in fundamental constants.
PACS numbers: 23.60.+e,23.40.-s,96.60.-j,96.60.Vg,06.20.Jr
Keywords: alpha decays, beta decays, solar activity, fine structure constant, neutrinos

arXiv.0808.3283v1 [astro-ph] 25 Aug 2008

Anaconda said...

EVIDENCE AND DISAGREEMENT

The post points to physical evidence, that is the strongest type of evidence science can observe, measure, and interpret or analyze.

Althougth, as Louis Hissink points out, even that can have difficulties with dating.

"Tales" from ancient peoples are more problematic because of issues of interpretation and dating.

See, Address of Abraham Sachs, where professor Sachs analyzes Velokovsky's interpretation of Cuniform scripts. Sachs dismantles Velikovsky's interpretation both as to content and dating.

OilIsMastery has been going hog wild with Velikosky, seemingly even setting himself up as his own Velikovsky, and I have admittedly flirted with his ideas as well.

The "Dark Age of Greece" has been brought up. Was there a 300 to 400 year long "Dark Age"?

There are others, besides Velikovsky, who question the dating.

See, The 'Dark Age' in Greece, by E.J de Meester.

Meester disagrees with Velikovsky's physical reasons (swirling planets), but lends support to the idea of poor dating and a possible cataclysm of some kind.

Of course, others vigorously disagree and maintain the conventional time line from the Battle of Troy to the beginning of Classical Greece.

As I stated, I've flirted with Velikovsky's ideas, so I felt I better get the other side of the story, worts and all.

See, The Velikovsky Affair

I find Velikovsky problematic.

I strongly subscribe to the premise it is necessary to seperate Velikovskyism and the scientific investigation of electromagnetism in space.

I stay convinced of the electromagnetism paradigm, although, rather than dismissing gravity, the respective roles of electromagnetism and gravity should be determined. Also, thermal expansion should not be left out of the dynamic relationships in space.

All dynamic relations of physical matter that can be observed & measured and analyzed should be considered side-by-side in an open, cooperative, and collaborative process.

Isn't that when Man makes some of his greatest scientific advancements? Not when 'turf' battles predominate over careful application of the scientific method.

Sure, there are many times when the competition of ideas is a good thing, but senseless disputation can wreak more destruction than advancement.

"Come let us reason together."

It's too easy to become infatuated with Velikovsky's ideas about planets swirling around Earth wreaking havoc.

But one should not confuse the man, Velikovsky, and the science or lack, thereof. My flirtation with Velikovsky has been tempered if not extinguished.

The gods were identified with many natural phenomenon, not just the planets. Perhaps, the planets were named after the gods to honor them and not because the planets were seen as the gods, themselves.

We just don't know, but to place all our scientific sense in the hands of Velikosky is wrong on several different levels.

Even hard core Velikovskians have become disillusioned. Leroy Ellenberger was Executive Secretary and Senior Editor for the Velikovsky journal Kronos, confidant to Velikovsky, and Devil's Advocate for Aeon.

Ellenberger's denouncement, An Antidote to Velikoskian Delusions, should carry weight.

Ideas and the scientific observation, measurement, and analysis that support the ideas are more important than any one man or several.

This post gets back to physical evidence. And that's where science is on the firmist foundation.

Tom, there are disputes about Clovis culture and it's timing and where Clovis culture originated. There is no settled understanding of Clovis culture.

Tom, is your mention of Clovis culture meant as a dispute to the timing of this asserted celestial event (or series of events) or an objection that the "event" happened at all?

But back to the physical evidence.

Louis, points out the potential dating problem from another angle, And in another context, Louis pointed out that Korean and Chinese astromical and weather recording suggest that sustained meteorite showers can have a significant impact on weather and climate.

Is the post referring to one event or a sustained series of events that in retrospect should be considered one event over time. It seems to point to the latter.

I applaud OilIsMastery's renewed commitment to physical science with can be observed & measured and analyzed.

Old disputations about a problematic theory based on questionable interpretations of old legend and myth is likely to lead to a bare & bitter harvest.

The results of this discussion are more likely to yield a plentiful harvest of intellectual fruit.

OilIsMastery said...

So how many votes is that for science being myth and how many votes for myth being science?

=)

Anaconda said...

@ OilIsMastery:

Neither. To pose the question such as you have is to trivialyze both. Each should be considered in their seperate realm.

Proper respect for both and a healthy seperation will do the most to advance the scientific enterprise.

OilIsMastery said...

Are meteorites myth or science?

Tom Marking said...

@OIM "The fact is humans exist on planet Earth. Are you saying that because humans exist therefore there are no such things as meteorite impacts?"

No, I'm not saying any such thing. I was already familiar with the 12.9 ka event. I believe it was the Holocene Working Group that first proposed it? In any event, I think they are overreaching if they claim it did in the Clovis culture because it is my understanding that Clovis stone tools have been dated to as recent as 9,000 BCE.

OilIsMastery said...

So that's one vote for science being myth.

Anaconda said...

I'll vote for evidence of meteorites being science.

Tom, I always was dubious of the idea that Man limited to spears & arrows could wipe-out all the megafauna.

There seems to be two choices in regards to the extinction of the megafauna, either Man was able to hunt them all down or some "event" happened.

Now, there is a candidate that can be argued impacted megafauna two ways: The event, itself, could have taken a big toll, and a possible resulting ice age.

Where were the Clovis points found that date from 9,000 B.C.?

Also, Man could have been severely reduced in number, but still retained Clovis point knowledge and use, and/or Man could have repopulated areas that they had been eliminated from by meteorites and colder climate.

Meteorites are not unprecedented. In fact, a concentrated number of meteorites over time is a much more plausible "mechanism" than swirling planets, but with a high enough intensity (numbers, size, and duration) would have a similar effect.

When you examine planets and moons there are many evidences of electromagnetic dynamics.

Which brings us back around, I suspose, to the idea claimed by some researchers that electromagnetism does influence meteorites and comets, potentially adding to the destruction either would have upon contact with Earth's atmosphere and finally with Earth's surface.

Remember the disappearance of the megafauna, some of those were well suited for cold weather, like Wooly Mammoths, yet still disappeared. Others, like Saber Toothed Tigers were unlikely to have been hunted to extinction by Man.

The first posted report stated in part: "The in situ bones of extinct Pleistocene megafauna, along with Clovis tool assemblages, occur below this black layer but not within or above it."

Are the scientist blowing smoke?

The report goes on to state: "Clovis-age sites in North American are overlain by a thin, discrete layer with varying peak abundances of (i) magnetic grains with iridium, (ii) magnetic microspherules, (iii) charcoal, (iv) soot, (v) carbon spherules, (vi) glass-like carbon containing nanodiamonds, and (vii) fullerenes with ET helium, all of which are evidence for an ET impact and associated biomass burning at ≈12.9 ka."

The listed abundances seem consistent with the scientist's theory of an extraterrestrial event.

Although, I might hasten to add that there may not have been an impact or impacts, the meteorites (comets?) may well have exploded in the atmosphere due to electrical stress.

This might explain the wide-spread dispersal of the types of elements found. Remember, a "thin discrete layer" was observed & measured.

No one thought, "death would come from the sky."

When you throw in the impact thought to have happened 65 million years ago associated with the extinction of the dinosaurs, Earth has a recurring rendezvous with interplanetary cataclysm.

The question can then be asked: Where do all these meteorites come from?

For instance, how did meteorites scientifically identified as coming from the surface of Mars get to the surface of Earth.

Of course, the hard part is how did those meteorites get off the surface of Mars?

Does "modern" astronomy have an answer?

Electric Universe does.

Louis Hissink said...

OiM,

I think your batted one over their heads :-)

Louis Hissink said...

Anaconda,

Velikovsky, as you are discovering, was human and made errors, though Ellenberger needs to be treated with even more caution.

The problem with historical descriptions lies in the assumption that what the ancients wrote or handed meant what we, today, presume they meant.

Julian Jaynes commented on this in The Bicameral Mind.

I came across this when I was checking the citations in World in Collisions when I found that the scripture quoted did not square with the Good News Bible; It did with the King James Authorised version.

This raises a new problem of heirs rewriting history in terms they understood to update ancient accounts.

It also goes to the heart of Mankind's amnesia.

We cannot accept as literal fact that Moses, or Joshua Ben Nun, by stamping their sticks into the ground parting the waters, or making the sun stand still in the heavens, as scientific explanations for the parting of waters or the solar anomaly.

This is the reason why science cannot be myth, apart from the fact that the former is a method, while the latter a catagorisation of an inexplicable historical account that creates cognitive dissonance.

I've looked at Rand Flem-Ath's 60 minute video presentation on their site and generally agree with their conclusion except for the Hapgood mechanism. What I have to study now is how expanding earth theory explains ice ages, something which I had not thought about before, despite having all of Carey's seminal texts.

Anaconda said...

@ Louis Hissink:

The challenge in all this is to stay balanced and always keep focussed on the physical evidence.

When one is immersed in a position, to break away, such as Ellenberger did, often makes one swing to the opposite pole (ex-smokers or ex-drinkers can be the most zealous).

In some ways, Ellenberger did not do that, as he allows that meteorites and comets can possibly be a source of intermittent cataclysm. In other ways, Ellenberger did swing over to the opposite pole, he treats electromagnetism in space in a perfunctatory and dismissive fashion.

I found Ellenbergers dismissal of electromagnetism unpersuasive because certain of his facts were wrong. (There has been an electron "back-drift" toward the Sun scientifically observed & measured and evidence of electromagnetic machining of planet surfaces has been observed & meaured, among many other evidences.)

But where Ellenberger totally dismantles the "Saturnist myth" is in regards to the "pole configuration" idea where planets are supposedly stacked on top of each other in a synchronous orbit.

It's difficult enough to demonstrate within scientific constraints that planets were swirling and careening all over the solar system, it's impossible to demonstrate within known scientific constraints, let alone describe in a quantifiable manner, planets being stacked ontop of one another in synchronous orbit.

On that score, I'm not sure who is less believable, Veliskovsky or the neo-Velikoskians.

I agree, Man suffers amnesia many times, but scientfic observation & measurement of present physical phenomenon must be held and maintained at the pinnacle of the scientific enterprise.

When it doesn't, science becomes like those dogmatic beliefs it was designed to supplant: A restraint and retardation of Man's ability to understand and control his world.

When physical observation is cast down, science is not much better than superstition and fear, maybe worse because science claims to wear the purple robes of reason upon its shoulders.

Tom Marking said...

@Anaconda "Where were the Clovis points found that date from 9,000 B.C.?"

Several general sources are putting the demise of Clovis Man c. 9,000 BCE:

http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Clovis_culture.aspx

"Clovis culture a group of Paleo-Indians (see Americas, antiquity and prehistory of the ) known through artifacts first excavated in the early 1930s near Clovis, N.Mex. The artifacts, including chipped flint points known as Clovis points and a variety of additional stone tools, were found along with remains of large mammals, particularly extinct mammoths. The remains, which date from 10,000 to 9000 BC, were found widely in North America, especially on the Great Plains. Like Folsom points (see Folsom culture ), Clovis points show a distinct lengthwise groove (known as fluting) on each face..."

Tom Marking said...

@Anaconda "See, Address of Abraham Sachs, where professor Sachs analyzes Velokovsky's interpretation of Cuniform scripts. Sachs dismantles Velikovsky's interpretation both as to content and dating."

Yeah, if this is the guy I'm thinking of, he completely blows Velikovsky out of the water in terms of his interpretation of cuneiform texts.

"OilIsMastery has been going hog wild with Velikosky, seemingly even setting himself up as his own Velikovsky"

One wonders if this will be the subject of OIM's upcoming book. Perhaps the title will be something like "Yet More Worlds in Electromagnetic Collision"?

"The "Dark Age of Greece" has been brought up. Was there a 300 to 400 year long "Dark Age"?"

Dark Ages are always relative and always declared to exist after the fact. No one living in such an age calls it a Dark Age.

"Meester disagrees with Velikovsky's physical reasons (swirling planets), but lends support to the idea of poor dating and a possible cataclysm of some kind."

Show me the impact crater dating from the 7th century BCE and you'll make a believer out of me. Until then, not so much.

"Tom, there are disputes about Clovis culture and it's timing and where Clovis culture originated. There is no settled understanding of Clovis culture."

Yes, then that's why we should take with a huge grain of salt the assertion that an asteroid impact 12,900 years ago wiped them out. That's all I'm saying.

"Tom, is your mention of Clovis culture meant as a dispute to the timing of this asserted celestial event (or series of events) or an objection that the "event" happened at all?"

Neither. The event probably happened. It probably happened at 12.9 ka. I dispute that it wiped out Clovis Man.

"I applaud OilIsMastery's renewed commitment to physical science with can be observed & measured and analyzed."

Huh, a moment ago you were castigating him for setting himself up as a new Velikovsky. Which one is it?

Anaconda said...

@ Tom Marking:

You stated perplexedly: "Huh, a moment ago you were castigating him for setting himself up as a new Velikovsky. Which one is it?"

In response to my [Anaconda's] comment: "I applaud OilIsMastery's renewed commitment to physical science with can be observed & measured and analyzed."

Tom, OilIsMastery made a series of posts where he did seemingly put himself up as his own Velikosky, but this post was firmly on the foundation of physical observation & measurement, so I wanted to recognize and encourage that.

I asked: "Where were the Clovis points found that date from 9,000 B.C.?"

I note you provided an answer prior to my comment where I asked the above question. I missed your reference citation. My apologies.

I agree on your characterization of "Dark Ages."

You state: "Show me the impact crater dating from the 7th century BCE and you'll make a believer out of me. Until then, not so much."

I mentioned that meteorites don't necesarrily hit the ground, but can have an air detination or explode before hitting the ground which is suspected in the case of the 1908 Siberian, Tunguska meteorite.

Also, a series of meteorites wouldn't leave "an impact crator." Nor would they have to necessarily leave "a thin, discrete layer" of residue to still impact the climate or disrupt Man's activities.

I agree, complete "wipe-out" is overstating the evidence.

Because I made an assertion about Mars' meteorites that adds a physical observation that supports electromagnetic forces on an interplanetary scale, I link this Wikipedia entry: Mars meteorite, and include this picture of a reddish Mars' meteorite. According to the entry 34 such Mars' meteorites have been found.

I recognize the source may be unpalatable, but it does provide a detailed hypothesis, electrical discharge machining, of how Martian meteorites could escape the surface.

Because a picture is worth a thousand words, as the old saw goes, I thought I would provide this NASA picture from Mercury. Plasma physics laboratory experiments have simulated these and other electrical discharge patterns.

Tom Marking said...

@Anaconda "I recognize the source may be unpalatable, but it does provide a detailed hypothesis, electrical discharge machining, of how Martian meteorites could escape the surface."

The URL you provided says nothing about the expulsion of meteoroids from the surface of Mars via some type of EM process. Instead, it purports to explain how certain channels in the surface of Mars are formed electromagnetically. What gives?

Anaconda said...

@ Tom Marking:

"What gives?"

Astronomy and astrophysics has no explanation for the Martian meteorites on Earth (other than a vague "collisions").

That leaves room for alternative hypothesis.

According to Electric Universe hypothesis, electrical discharge machining can explosively carve out rock from planetary surfaces.

"As in arc welding, material from the electrode will be accelerated upwards against gravity. This means that any electrical event capable of creating the Valles Marineris on Mars would likely throw huge volumes of rock into space, creating vast debris clouds. Some of the ejecta would encircle Mars or fall back to the planet, while other material would presumably escape the battlefield altogether, to be encountered by the Earth and other planets across the millennia."

"The electric interpretation thus removes another conundrum. It explains why Martian meteorites have arrived at Earth to perplex physicists and geologists. Until the signature of Martian atmosphere in these meteorites was identified beyond any reasonable doubt, the experts said that such rocks could not achieve escape velocity from Mars without being vaporized by the explosive force required."

It doesn't have to be on a Valles Marineris scale if that makes you uncomfortable, although, I note conventional astronomy and astrophysics doesn't have an explanation for Valles Marineris, either.

Yes, it's only a hypothesis, but when the only other hypothesis is a vague "collisions", then other alternatives should be considered.

Tom Marking said...

@Anaconda "According to Electric Universe hypothesis, electrical discharge machining can explosively carve out rock from planetary surfaces."

A couple of points. According to your theory where are the endpoints of the supposed electric arc? Is it a Birkeland current from the sun to Mars? Or is it a Birkeland current between two points on the surface of Mars?

Have laboratory experiments confirmed that an electric arc can accelerate rocks or small pebbles to a high enough velocity to escape from Mars (~5 km/sec) without vaporizing the material?

Raptor Lewis said...

Myth and Science are, by human definition, two different things. Myth is a part of Science because science is the process to investigate the myth and find out what is fact from a myth, a popular belief and perception. So I guess, depending on how you look at it, Science is neither and both. If you understand what you're saying. What we say is true, like falling water is called "rain" and if you're covered in "water" you're "wet." This could easily be changed by changing the definition of something that exists.

As for "Humans exist, so does that mean Meteors DON'T exist," you can't say that because they are unrelated and can coexist at the same time. This discussion has turned from Archaeological to Theological. At least, I can contribute much better when it comes to theology than Physics.

Anaconda said...

@ Tom Marking:

You bring up two solid points.

I'm not aware if the electrical energy necessary to generate escape velocity has been quantified on a scaled basis.

It's my understanding the end points of the electrical discharge required are theorized to come from other planets, also a possibility would be some kind of comet.

The key to the electrical discharge as I understand it is the accumulation of electrical potential when the "body" changes it's relationship to the overall electromagnetic field of the solar system, this is generated by changing its distance in relation to the Sun. Also, the strength of the electromagnetic field generated by the Sun would play a role in this process.

My hunch, and that's all it is at this point, is that these discharges were not recent, but rather quite long ago in the history of the solar system.

But again, your point is well taken. There is a lack of quantitative analysis regarding these hypothesized processes.

I'll hypothsize in general terms at this point. Possibly interplanetary electrical disharges (cosmic thunderbolts, as it were) are the result of an interplanetary chain reaction from an intensified output of solar electromagnetic energy.

Not so much a direct "zap" from the Sun, but somekind of interaction between the planets, as a result of solar electromagnetic energy.

Yes, I realize, that is a vague response and it needs to be "fleshed out".

OilIsMastery said...

Anaconda,

Your Velikovsky links are bunk and the language therein is that of blind fundamentalist children with no education.

Velikovsky is attacked for the views you believe to be true.

Anaconda said...

@ OilIsMastery:

I don't understand what you mean by "blind fundamentalist children with no education."

What specifically is "bunk" about the links provided?

Yes, people do attack Velikovsky for his view that electromagnetism is an active force in the solar system. In that respect I stongly disagree with those attacks.

I am convinced that electromagnetism plays a vital role in the solar system and beyond.

There is a reason NASA teaches about "Electric Currents from Space" and "Plasma" as part of NASA's "The Exploration of the Earth's Magnetosphere" education project.

It's significant that NASA teaches electromagnetism.

On the other hand, Velikovsky has been demonstrated to be wrong in a number of areas of myth interpretation.

I don't subscribe to Velikovsky's specific cosmology and history.

Even neo-Velikovskians don't subscribe to Velikovsky's specific cosmology and history.

I'm not a neo-Velikovskian, either.

OilIsMastery, do you subscribe to Velikovsky's cosmology and history word for word?

OilIsMastery said...

Anaconda,

"I don't understand what you mean by 'blind fundamentalist children with no education.' What specifically is 'bunk' about the links provided?"

Perhaps the fact that it is nothing but ad hominem attacks using the idiotic and puerile term "pseudo" ten times in each sentence while refusing to address a single one of Velikovsky's scientific claims.

"Yes, people do attack Velikovsky for his view that electromagnetism is an active force in the solar system. In that respect I stongly disagree with those attacks. I am convinced that electromagnetism plays a vital role in the solar system and beyond."

The articles you linked to call that "pseudoscience."

"On the other hand, Velikovsky has been demonstrated to be wrong in a number of areas of myth interpretation."

Name one person who hasn't been demonstrated to be wrong about something or other.

"I don't subscribe to Velikovsky's specific cosmology and history."

What would that be?

"Even neo-Velikovskians don't subscribe to Velikovsky's specific cosmology and history."

I'm not sure what you mean. Do any two people agree on all the specifics?

"I'm not a neo-Velikovskian, either."

I have no idea what that means. I'll have to look it up.

"OilIsMastery, do you subscribe to Velikovsky's cosmology and history word for word?"

No. I don't subscribe to anything word for word. But Velikovsky is a million billion times closer to the truth than Newton or Einstein or any mainstream so-called "scientist."

Anaconda said...

@ OilIsMastery:

Well...it seems to disagree with Velikovsky, is to run afoul of OilIsMastery.

Fine.

I'm left wondering how much consideration you gave to my actual comments as opposed to a knee-jerk reaction against criticism of Velikovsky.

My comments speak for themselves.

As part of my comments, I specifically distinguished Ellenberger's dismissal of electromagnetism in space from his crititism of Velikovsky's specific cosmology and history.

See, here:

"When one is immersed in a position, to break away, such as Ellenberger did, often makes one swing to the opposite pole (ex-smokers or ex-drinkers can be the most zealous).

In some ways, Ellenberger did not do that, as he allows that meteorites and comets can possibly be a source of intermittent cataclysm. In other ways, Ellenberger did swing over to the opposite pole, he treats electromagnetism in space in a perfunctatory and dismissive fashion.

I found Ellenbergers dismissal of electromagnetism unpersuasive because certain of his facts were wrong. (There has been an electron "back-drift" toward the Sun scientifically observed & measured and evidence of electromagnetic machining of planet surfaces has been observed & meaured, among many other evidences.)"

But it seems the above passage didn't make much of an impression on you, OilIsMastery.

Nor my comment above where I reaffirm my support of electromagnetism by linking the NASA education project.

So, what am I to think?

OilIsMastery, you, respond to my initial question with the below response:

"Perhaps the fact that it is nothing but ad hominem attacks using the idiotic and puerile term "pseudo" ten times in each sentence while refusing to address a single one of Velikovsky's scientific claims."

Your response is an exaggeration, and, itself, an ad hominem attack against the links without addressing specifics. In fact, the links do address specifics, but it appears you can't bring yourself to grapple with those specifics.

Say, the specific points raised by Abraham Sachs' address.

Also, you ignore the link I provided that does support some of Velikovsky's history, specifically the "Greek Dark Age", or lack thereof.

As previously stated above in this comment, I specifically state what and why I disagree with Ellenberger.

OilIsMastery, you, ask what views of Velikovsky I disagree with?

I don't subscribe to Velikovsky's birth of planets from other planets. Nor Velikovsky's near collisions of Earth and other planets. Also, most, if not all, of his interpretations of history and myth, or the causality of same, see Sachs address above.

OilIsMastery, you acknowledge you don't subscribe to word for word with Velikovsky.

My question ["do you subscribe to Velikovsky's cosmology and history word for word?"] to you was a general and I thought inoffensive way to invite you to distinguish yourself from Velikovsky.

Apparently, you decline to distinguish yourself from Velikovsky in any meaningful way.

I stated: "Even neo-Velikovskians don't subscribe to Velikovsky's specific cosmology and history."

And you responded: "I'm not sure what you mean. Do any two people agree on all the specifics?"

I would have thought it was clear enough from the links I provided and my above comment, but many neo-Velikovskians believe in the "pole configuration," as described in the "Saturnist myth" most publically espoused by David Talbott.

I'll try again to invite you to distinguish yourself from Velikovsky: Are there any significant specific areas where you disagree with Velikovsky?

OilIsMastery, you present my [Anaconda's] comment: "I'm not a neo-Velikovskian, either."

And oilIsMastery, you, repond: "I have no idea what that means. I'll have to look it up."

Again, it seemed clear enough, but perhaps not: I don't subscribe to the "pole configuration" of Mr. Talbott, or the Saturn as an invader 'brown dwarf' that came into the solar system with Earth and other planets "under it's wing."

There isn't enough scientific evidence for either of those conclusions.

Finally, OilIsMastery, you, conclude your comment: "No. I don't subscribe to anything word for word. But Velikovsky is a million billion times closer to the truth than Newton or Einstein or any mainstream so-called "scientist."

I distinguish Einstein and Newton.

Considering the level of scientific understanding when Newton described the force of gravity, but specifically declined to offer hypothesis on what caused gravity and developed a mathematical framework for predicting it (calculus), Newton's work remains a valuble contribution to the advancement of scientific knowledge.

Einstein has led science badly astray into a scientific cul-de-sac.

OilIsMastery, your obvious, admiration for Velikovsky is fine, but your seeming intolerance for criticism of his ideas is unwarranted and your indiscriminate, seemingly across the board, disdain for "any mainstream so-called "scientist," also comes across as extreme.

Remember, I also disagree with several "accepted" conclusions of "modern" science, but I think it's important to refrain from using too broad a brush stroke.

Applied material science (computers, medicine, electrical engineering, space exploration and many more) have truly achieved wonders.

Your position only isolates you and minimizes the weight of your opinion and ability to persuade others.

That is counter-productive in my estimation.

OilIsMastery said...

Sorry if I ignored the good things you said. I don't mean to take them for granted. And I don't.

I think you are being unfair to Velikovsky but that is nothing new.

"many neo-Velikovskians believe in the "pole configuration," as described in the "Saturnist myth" most publically espoused by David Talbott."

I can't speak for them. On the one hand I have no reason to think that and on the other hand I'm not so quick to deny it.

"I don't subscribe to the "pole configuration" of Mr. Talbott, or the Saturn as an invader 'brown dwarf' that came into the solar system with Earth and other planets 'under it's wing.' There isn't enough scientific evidence for either of those conclusions."

Granted.

"Newton's work remains a valuble contribution to the advancement of scientific knowledge."

I don't see that.

"Einstein has led science badly astray into a scientific cul-de-sac."

That I see; clearly.

"your seeming intolerance for criticism of his ideas is unwarranted and your indiscriminate, seemingly across the board"

What idea of his are you criticizing?

Anaconda said...

@ OilIsMastery:

Perhaps, in place of "criticism", disagree is the better word.