Forget about global warming, we are one step from extinction!

[Xcoder]

Okay, campers, rise and shine.
Don't forget your booties
because it's cold out there today.

From Groundhog Day

http://www.signs-of-the-times.org/ar...om+Extinction!

[capsulecorpjx]

From Groundhog Day

http://www.signs-of-the-times.org/ar...om+Extinction!

From your article:

As it happens, Firestone, West and Warwick-Smith also talk about a bombardment of Planet Earth by literally thousands of asteroids, comets, or other debris, though they attribute it to the supernova 28 or 29 thousand years earlier; it took that long for the ejecta from the supernova - along with debris it kicked out of the Oort cloud - to reach Earth.

I can tell you now that that is wrong. Those guys dont' understand the enormity of the spaces between planets and stars.

For a supernova with a debris radius of 29 thousand light years means Earth will be sprinkled with a single dust particle from it, if that.

Yes Earth has a chance to be hit by an asteroid, but the chances of it happening are extremely low (look up scale models of the distances between planets, stars and asteroids to understand how these small objects have little chance of hitting each other), and are the same for any given year.

Even if the Earth is "overdue" for an asteroid hit doesn't mean we're more likely to be hit, the chance to be hit every given year is the same.

Also, considering the time between major asteroid hits, it could be +/- millions of years before the next one, and considering human civilization is at most 10,000 years old, it's nothing.

[Foxer]

Humankind won't survive past 2050.

This thread is irrelevant and should be locked.

[Arrow_Raider]

religious beliefs will be our demise

[wossname]

Feel sorry for the poor sods that live on the asteroid that the earth is about to smash into.

They'll get global warming, tsunamis, earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions all at the same time.

[Xcoder]

From your article:


I can tell you now that that is wrong. Those guys dont' understand the enormity of the spaces between planets and stars.

For a supernova with a debris radius of 29 thousand light years means Earth will be sprinkled with a single dust particle from it, if that.

Yes Earth has a chance to be hit by an asteroid, but the chances of it happening are extremely low (look up scale models of the distances between planets, stars and asteroids to understand how these small objects have little chance of hitting each other), and are the same for any given year.

Even if the Earth is "overdue" for an asteroid hit doesn't mean we're more likely to be hit, the chance to be hit every given year is the same.

Also, considering the time between major asteroid hits, it could be +/- millions of years before the next one, and considering human civilization is at most 10,000 years old, it's nothing.

The article isnt about the probabilities of Earth being hit by a massive asteroid. Based on ice layer investigation and historical documentation, there is enough evidence to prove that SOMETHING happens with periodic recurrence. Now there is also evidence that something is happening in the milky way as the moons of saturn and jupiter have at least tripled in a 30 year period and the reports of asteroids entering earth have increased as well.

[baja_yu]

From Groundhog Day

http://www.signs-of-the-times.org/ar...om+Extinction!

Woa... I'm not reading that crap. Summarize it in one word. (from Futurama)...

[mendhak]

The article isnt about the probabilities of Earth being hit by a massive asteroid. Based on ice layer investigation and historical documentation, there is enough evidence to prove that SOMETHING happens with periodic recurrence.

It's not periodic. It's cosmologically random, but since it happens on the scale of millions of years, one would attempt to attribute an average time period to it. And of course, there are other things due. Like the magnetic pole flip. The bit about the asteroids though, is really old news.

Now there is also evidence that something is happening in the milky way as the moons of saturn and jupiter have at least tripled in a 30 year period and the reports of asteroids entering earth have increased as well.

Something is always happening in the Milky Way. (Also bear in mind that our observational capabilities have also improved in the past 30 years)

[Xcoder]

It's not periodic. It's cosmologically random, but since it happens on the scale of millions of years, one would attempt to attribute an average time period to it. And of course, there are other things due. Like the magnetic pole flip. The bit about the asteroids though, is really old news.

Perhaps, but the article has references to at least 3 scientific works that suggest the existence of a 3600 year cycle, which is a VERY interesting thing to look at.

Something is always happening in the Milky Way. (Also bear in mind that our observational capabilities have also improved in the past 30 years)

Quoted from the article:

The explanation given most often to explain this surge in the numbers of satellites for these planets is that telescopes have gotten better. That is, we can see further, with greater detail, and can therefore find things that we couldn't see before. It is an explanation that makes sense. One small problem with this theory is that the "new" moons of Neptune and Uranus showed up before the new moons of Jupiter and Saturn. One would think that powerful telescopes capable of finding moons as far away as the seventh and eighth planets would have found the hard to see moons of the fifth and sixth first.

Another possible explanation, and one which fits with new moons appearing around Neptune and Uranus prior to appearing around Jupiter and Saturn, is that these new moons, or some of them, are objects that have been trapped into orbits around these planets only recently, that they were captured by the gravity of these planets and removed from the incoming comet cloud. Passing the orbits of the outer planets first, they would arrive at the inner planets afterward.

[mendhak]

One small problem with this theory is that the "new" moons of Neptune and Uranus showed up before the new moons of Jupiter and Saturn. One would think that powerful telescopes capable of finding moons as far away as the seventh and eighth planets would have found the hard to see moons of the fifth and sixth first.

No, one would not think that unless they were utterly daft. Uranus' rings were discovered years after Jupiter's rings. That doesn't prove or disprove anything. I understand what the article is saying, but the author does nothing but attempt to present old information in a new way in a manner similar to fringe scientists and businessmen trying to present "Web 2.0... it's awszummmm" and "Global warming is a hoax!" by attempting to appeal to the side of human nature that finds an appeal in perceived flaws in the nature of our reality.

[Xcoder]

One small problem with this theory is that the "new" moons of Neptune and Uranus showed up before the new moons of Jupiter and Saturn. One would think that powerful telescopes capable of finding moons as far away as the seventh and eighth planets would have found the hard to see moons of the fifth and sixth first.

No, one would not think that unless they were utterly daft. Uranus' rings were discovered years after Jupiter's rings. That doesn't prove or disprove anything. I understand what the article is saying, but the author does nothing but attempt to present old information in a new way in a manner similar to fringe scientists and businessmen trying to present "Web 2.0... it's awszummmm" and "Global warming is a hoax!" by attempting to appeal to the side of human nature that finds an appeal in perceived flaws in the nature of our reality.

Uhmmm...lets recap, what we have here is a working hypothesis, it is stated IN the article. What the author tries to do here is to gather multiple data and compress it in a few pages (and it is still large) to back it up.

It can be said that better telescopes made it possible to find the rings in Uranus. But it is not the case with the "new" moons of Jupiter and Saturn, as they were found after the ones in Uranus. Isn't that funny?

Edit: And yes, the moons of uranus have also increased in number, and those are the ones Im referring to (thats also in the article).

I wouldn't be so quick to judge the author's style to present things, how about checking the references? That sounds like an objective way to discredit someone.

And about Global Warming, well I don't think it is a hoax, it is very real. But in the same site you can find articles about how other planets in the Milky Way are heating up too, why could be this?

[capsulecorpjx]

The article isnt about the probabilities of Earth being hit by a massive asteroid. Based on ice layer investigation and historical documentation, there is enough evidence to prove that SOMETHING happens with periodic recurrence. Now there is also evidence that something is happening in the milky way as the moons of saturn and jupiter have at least tripled in a 30 year period and the reports of asteroids entering earth have increased as well.

Well true, any disaster, even a minor one will cause a major human catastrophe since we're so overpopulated and overdependent on resources such as water and oil.

It'll lead to the collapse of major civilizations, but it probably won't wipe the species out completely. That's hard to do considering we cover every inch of the planet.

[sevenhalo]

It'll lead to the collapse of major civilizations, but it probably won't wipe the species out completely. That's hard to do considering we cover every inch of the planet.

But we could end up with a planet full of fuglies. I for one have been faced with a "not even if you're the last man alive."

[mendhak]

Uhmmm...lets recap, what we have here is a working hypothesis, it is stated IN the article. What the author tries to do here is to gather multiple data and compress it in a few pages (and it is still large) to back it up.

Me, I see 30% research, 70% speculation. That is only my opinion though, only the author knows the true percentage involved. I do consider myself very well read and that is my observation of his presentation. (Sometimes I eat pages which I have trouble with so I can understand them better).

It can be said that better telescopes made it possible to find the rings in Uranus. But it is not the case with the "new" moons of Jupiter and Saturn, as they were found after the ones in Uranus. Isn't that funny?

No, it's not really funny because my point is that it neither proves nor disproves anything.

I wouldn't be so quick to judge the author's style to present things, how about checking the references? That sounds like an objective way to discredit someone.

Don't always assume that someone badmouthing someone else hasn't read up on his facts.

And about Global Warming, well I don't think it is a hoax, it is very real. But in the same site you can find articles about how other planets in the Milky Way are heating up too, why could be this?

Mars. Pluto. Earth. Hmm, and not the others in between, why could this be? (Oh and we don't know about the rest of the planets in the Milky Way to know whether they are undergoing unusual climate change or not. Just the solar system.)

Read about Milankovitch Periods. And obviously, Pluto will have its climate change for a long, long time since it has very long revolutionary periods. Further, if we forget that Milankovitch periods exist, there is also the point about seasons. There is also the fact that events on a cosmological scale do not occur immediately. We have been observing the heavens in details for about, say, 100 years. That is not enough time to have complete understanding of the workings of the Great Red Spot, or Saturn's rings, or Mars' climate, or Pluto's atmosphere to an extent that a change that we observe on them would amount to an impending doom.

Again, the reason I'm badmouthing the guy. I'm not saying he's lying. It's just a matter of how facts are presented to coerce someone to think a certain way. It's also why I mentioned the fringe scientists. Take data. extract the points that suit you. Present them in a way so that it may not broker any arguments.

I'll take an example. He mentions a 3600 year cycle. So obviously, I should be looking for 1600BC. He says

Among the many side-effects of cometary bombardments is earthquakes, tsunamis and volcanic eruptions. As it happens, there was a significant volcanic event at the time of the collapse of the Bronze Age civilizations that gives us a firmly fixed date: Thera. Recent developments published in the April 2006 issue of Science fix the date of the eruption between 1627 and 1600 B.C. with 95 % certainty. This, of course, is rejected by many archaeologists because they have spent their entire careers trying to date things according to the Bible, and it really upsets the apple cart to realize that they've been chasing an illusion.

Wow! Thera! I'm convinced because he mentioned a large volcanic explosion that destroyed a negligible portion of life on our planet and affected weather patterns for a few years. Also the bit about dismissing archaeologists, because we all know that all archaeologists don't rely on scientific methods for dating anything they find. They just use apple carts.

What is he hiding here? The 'collapse' of the bronze age was the time when some of the greatest civilizations were flourishing. The Chinese and the Egyptians and the Indians. 'Collapse' here simply means, it gave way to the civilizations in their more rigid form as we've been studying them. Context, context, context.

[Xcoder]

Me, I see 30% research, 70% speculation. That is only my opinion though, only the author knows the true percentage involved. I do consider myself very well read and that is my observation of his presentation. (Sometimes I eat pages which I have trouble with so I can understand them better).

You gather data and present it in a new way to surface things the established theories might have missed or misunderstood, thats what it is called a new theory, a working hypothesis. Of course it has a part that is speculation, that's essential in EVERY theory/hypothesis.

No, it's not really funny because my point is that it neither proves nor disproves anything.

Number of moons as taken from the article.



I edited my last post because I thought I wasn't clear. Lets go over it again.

They found the "new" moons in Uranus first, suggesting that the reach of the telescopes wasn't the issue in the discovery of the new ones in Jupiter and Saturn. Now, the hypothesis presented states that the new moons might be part of a swarm of asteroids entering the Solar System from the Oort Cloud, as they were pushed in by the Sun's Dark Companion (part of the hypothesis so bear with me), and they got stuck in the orbits of these large planets.

It might be possible that they didn't find first the new ones in Jup&Sat because they weren't there in the first place?

Wow! Thera! I'm convinced because he mentioned a large volcanic explosion that destroyed a negligible portion of life on our planet and affected weather patterns for a few years. Also the bit about dismissing archaeologists, because we all know that all archaeologists don't rely on scientific methods for dating anything they find. They just use apple carts.

What is he hiding here? The 'collapse' of the bronze age was the time when some of the greatest civilizations were flourishing. The Chinese and the Egyptians and the Indians. 'Collapse' here simply means, it gave way to the civilizations in their more rigid form as we've been studying them. Context, context, context.

It was a little more rough than you might think. It involved death, famine and destruction, a time of great political and demographic stress, a time for big immigrations. This has all the ingredients of a cataclysm in the works. I would definately call it a 'collapse' of civilization under any context.

The dismissing done is on SOME archeologists married to the creationist idea and the fitting of the Bible as a reliable historical resource which in my personal opinion is far from being one, it doesn't say ALL of them as you put it.

Thera isn't used in the article as a CAUSE, but rather as a SYMPTOM.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronze_Age_collapse

BTW, they have a piece on Oak Island as well, you might want to check out.

[mendhak]

You gather data and present it in a new way to surface things the established theories might have missed or misunderstood, thats what it is called a new theory, a working hypothesis. Of course it has a part that is speculation, that's essential in EVERY theory/hypothesis.

You are right about that. But I still think there ought to be a balance between the two.

Number of moons as taken from the article.



I edited my last post because I thought I wasn't clear. Lets go over it again.

They found the "new" moons in Uranus first, suggesting that the reach of the telescopes wasn't the issue in the discovery of the new ones in Jupiter and Saturn. Now, the hypothesis presented states that the new moons might be part of a swarm of asteroids entering the Solar System from the Oort Cloud, as they were pushed in by the Sun's Dark Companion (part of the hypothesis so bear with me), and they got stuck in the orbits of these large planets.

It might be possible that they didn't find first the new ones in Jup&Sat because they weren't there in the first place?

Again with the moons.

Alright, assume that these objects did make an entry into the solar system between 1975 and 2005. The gravitational influences of an entry of such a large number of satellites would have been something that caused a stir, quite literally, as such a thing would have been noticed by our glassy eyes pointed in that direction. But there has been no change. Just because those moons were not observed in the order that one would expect them to be observed doesn't mean that they weren't there before.

A famous example of this is about 200 years ago, it was said that meteorites cannot come from outer space. After all, there are no stones in outer space, that was just impossible. Then we did observe stones in outer space and they were known as meteorites. This does not mean that they weren't there before.

Think about Cruithne, discovered in '86. It's been orbiting Earth for a long time but it is more of a recent discovery.

But again, the point about the 'new' moons proves nothing.

It was a little more rough than you might think. It involved death, famine and destruction, a time of great political and demographic stress, a time for big immigrations. This has all the ingredients of a cataclysm in the works. I would definately call it a 'collapse' of civilization under any context.

The dismissing done is on SOME archeologists married to the creationist idea and the fitting of the Bible as a reliable historical resource which in my personal opinion is far from being one, it doesn't say ALL of them as you put it.

....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronze_Age_collapse

The list:
* Earthquakes - 6.5 earthquakes were harsh, but earthquakes are not very unusual even today. I checked out where the earthquakes were centered. The Mediterranean. Earthquakes still happen there.
* Migrations - Irrelevant.
* Ironworking - Irrelevant.
* Drought - Common today.
* General systems collapse - Irrelevant.
* Raiders - Irrelevant.
* Changes in warfare - Irrelevant.

All in all, a cultural change more than a planetary one. It just wasn't big enough. Civilizations collapsed even before this period and after this. New ones took their place.

Thera isn't used in the article as a CAUSE, but rather as a SYMPTOM.

And nothing else as far as I could see.

BTW, they have a piece on Oak Island as well, you might want to check out.

OK.

[Xcoder]

* General systems collapse - Irrelevant.

If a simple google search on the bronze age collapse doesn't give you a panoramic look of what happened from Europe to China, well, our discussion here is over.

Here is another article that caught my attention, a source not from the first site but from the Council for British Archaeology.

http://www.knowledge.co.uk/sis/ba9712bp.htm

Also worth taking a look at, The Cosmic Winter by Clube & Napier.

Here is a list of books by Napier

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_b/...&Go.x=0&Go.y=0

and a very brief bio, but enough to point out he is a well respected astronomer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Napier

[mendhak]

As you wish.

[BillGeek]

Feel sorry for the poor sods that live on the asteroid that the earth is about to smash into.

They'll get global warming, tsunamis, earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions all at the same time.

Glad to see the Woss still in action...