1 sec=500 years

Scientists find weird crap constantly that disproves theories.

They had a show on HI the other day where they found some monolithic circular buildings in Turkey buried in the sand for maybe 15000 years. Perfect joints, huge blocks of rock-that civilizationt had to be around for a long time before that discovery, by way of extrapolation, just to figure out how to do it.

They found a map that belonged to an admiral Piri Reis of the Antartic coastline from the Middle Ages, too-so-I'm saying there's no telling how long some type of homo sapiens has been around.

Probably groundwork for publishing obama's birth certificate


RF 1

The important part of that distance is that water can exist in all three states simultaneously (I know that there are 57 states ;) ).

Pat

ALH 84001 found in Antarctica
 

That would be "Antarctica"; meteorite name ALH 84001 found in Dec '84. The "There might be life in this here rock" announcement was initially made in 1996. Now its thought that the different chemistry on Mars when the rock was there before being ejected, could be the reason for the formations some have thought to be exobiologic.

Attachment 18083

http://www.space.com/9623-martian-me...cientists.html

It's entirely possible that the rock was originally expelled from the Earth.

The amount of water on Earth is interesting when compared with the other planets.
Maybe all those water-containing comets came from Earth, rather that the water on Earth coming from comets.

The percentage of near-parabolic orbits among long period comets is much higher than it "should" be, falling in from all directions, and have perhelions concentrated near the sun (1-3 AU).
There has never been an observed case of comet having an incoming hyperbolic orbit.

This evidence would point to comets having recent origin from within the solar system.
Earth has most of the water and would be the likely source.

If some catastrophe in Earth's past could launch the comets, it could probably launch some other random rocks.

<shrug>
My guess is that scientific interpretation on any issue will be highly correlated with the motivations of the funding source.

Scientists skeptical of meteorite alien life claim
 

...and here comes the NASA peer onslaught:

AP: Scientists skeptical of meteorite alien life claim
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110307/...sci_alien_life

Biological terrestrial contamination is *the* biggest concern for anything found here, even if it originally was from another planet/source.

on the other hand from here I found:

Original paper as published in the Journal of Cosmology here

Attachment 18095

Contamination will always be claimed if biological evidence is found on meteorites.
Biological evidence tends more to undermine orthodoxy on the formation of the solar system rather than forward the likelyhood of extraterrestrial life.

Here's why:
Suppose that life exists somewhere on some distant planet and that planet ejected a rock with biological evidence on it.
This assumes that a planet can eject a rock into space.

That rock (and perhaps many others) scatter about the cosmos.
The dispersion will be subject to inverse-square laws associated with distance (like shotgun scatter).

Because of the inverse-square law, the most likely source (overwhelmingly so) would be the closest.
The closest source is Earth (meteorite returning home).

The original assumption establishes that a planet can eject rocks.
Finding life on a meteorite would tend to support the idea that solar system debris (comets, meteoroids, asteroids) came originally from within the solar system (Earth).

This would just add to the mounting problems associated with current orthodoxy.
(Orbits and inclinations of long-period vs. short period comets, small perihelions, short lifespans of Jupiter family comets, the excess of asteroids concentrated at Jupiter's L4 Langrange point when compared to its L5, etc.)

Contamination will always be claimed.

It's hard to say how many pieces of the puzzle went missing after the the Library at Alexandria was destroyed (thank you Christians and Muslims).

The source maps for the Piri Reis map were supposedly assembled from several other maps from around the time of Alexander the Great.
The map also indicates an ice-free coastline for Antarctica (as do some other ancient maps).

I subscribe to the theory that the Grand Canyon and much of its upstream area were carved out suddenly and recently by a few huge lakes draining.

Have a close friend who is Navajo and learned the old prayers and ceremonies from relatives who never spoke nor learned a word of English.
Some of these ceremonies reference specific, recent geologic details consistent with the "rapid, recent" Grand Canyon theory.

Some of the other histories, ceremonies, and prayers match up exactly with accounts from Genesis.
A couple of these involve obscure details and doctrines, not common to pop culture, one of which is antediluvian, identical in doctrine, and translates almost word-for-word.

My tradition came around the world, east to west, and was translated from Hebrew to Greek to Latin to English.
His tradition came around the world, west to east, and was passed down by word of mouth.

No crossover. Same story.
What are the odds?:munchin

Sirs

Pardon my naivete', but in my understanding of the way things work on this stable, rotating sphere we all inhabit, it would be extremely difficult to get this planet to eject rocks. The only two possibilities are
1 - being ejected from a volcano
2 - being fragmented and dispersed from the surface as the result of a meteor strike.

Gravity and air resistance prohibit number 1 from having the required energy to launch ejecta into space, and unless the meteor in number 2 was of sufficient size to blow a chunk off the opposite side of its strike zone, it doesn't have the required energy either.

My question to you then sir, is how does a planet launch rocks?

Furthermore, the Bible makes no mention of aliens as such. It does describe some strange creatures, but they all seem to share a common thread of supernatural... or immortal descent.

Genesis speaks nothing of a universe or solar system, how could it have 'missed' this?

In the absence of any compelling evidence to the contrary, it is almost foolish to disregard the possibility that there are other forms of life in this huge universe. I personally was hoping for little green men though. These tiny bacteria are almost disappointing if they truly are 'alien life forms' :).
Beam me up Scotty.

Just echoing some of Dusty's comments on the uncertainties in science.

The comparison between cultures is not a claim to the truth of those stories, it is meant to show that the cultures are probably not separated by a great deal of time, despite travelling around the Earth in opposite directions.

The ice-free Antarctic coastline indicates a problem with the orthodox scientific timeline.
The age limit on Jupiter's family of comets indicates problem with the orthodox scientific timeline.

Contamination will always be claimed because of probabilities associated with inverse-square law dispersion.
Orthodox theories on solar system formation have enough problems without adding life on meteorites.

The comet/asteroid/meteoroid issue can be approached from the effect>>cause direction.
First try and trace the orbits back, using the laws of physics, then try to determine the potential launching mechanism.


Theories get proposed and develop "inertia" when they hang around for awhile.
Eventually, they can turn into a belief system.

The Pythagoreans discovered irrational numbers and suppressed this knowledge because it didn't match with their belief system.
According to legend, a follower named Hippasus revealed the secret and was assassinated for his indiscretion.

Ptolemy's Almagest never claimed the astronomical theories to be truth, they just were very precise and better than the alternatives.
1500 years of being the best game in town resulted in the belief that it was absolute truth, hence the difficulty for Copernicus and Kepler.


Many in science seem to covet the political and moral authority found in government and religion.
Their purging of heretics is certainly an effective way to consolidate power, but stifles scientific progress.

There was a time when the clergy in Europe wielded great power because most people were illiterate.
Many are now are dependent on scientific "clergy" because they don't understand the math and heretics within the scientific "clergy" are purged.

With the internet, hopefully it won't take another 1500 years to get past the current orthodox inertia.

Understood, and thank you for taking the time to clarify.


On a similar note, I sure do wish that library in Alexandria was still around.

Your post piqued my curiosity about the Piri Re'is map (already knew about it in passing, but never pursued it in any depth).
It led to some other interesting finds.

Many in science, geologists in particular, defend "the clock" with religious zeal.
They don't tell you that the "principles" of Uniformitarianism and Superposition are actually just assumptions which often run contrary to evidence.

Picked up a book last week (Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings) which is the source of much of the research on the Piri Re'is map.
The author (Hapgood) had also written a previous book, Earth's Shifting Crust.

Plate tectonics were a relatively new idea when these books were written, and tried to explain the evidence of scattered fossils and odd climate records.
Hapgood's research indicated either continents which moved more rapidly than allowed by plate tectonics theory, a rapid change in the position of the equator, or both.

It is important to note that the spin axis of the Earth, in space, would not change; the sphere would reorient itself while the spin axis maintains orientation is space.
Drastically changing the spin axisrelative to space is contrary to conservation of momentum.

An adequate explanation for the (rapid) mechanism was lacking when his books were written, and plate tectonics did not offend "the clock".
Some continued the logical progression of Hapgood's work, but these theories have been discounted in faver of plate tectonics theory (in spite of the abundance of problems associated with plate tectonics).

The highly accurate ancient mapping of an ice-free Antarctica does not mesh with an ice cap which is supposed to be over 1 million years old.
Cores from the Ross Sea floor also bring the ice cap's age into question.

Hapgood's findings and the Ross Sea cores proved inconvenient to "the clock" and were thrown down the memory hole.
When they resurfaced, there were some attempts at refutation.

The rapid displacement theory and logical extensions of this idea have been continually poo-pooed, discouraging further investigation.

There was a prominent scientist of Hapgood's time who thought it warranted "serious attention".
Some of the Foreword (from Earth's Shifting Crust) written by that scientist:

"...The author has not confined himself to a simple presentation of this idea. He has also set forth, cautiously and comprehensively, the extraordinarily rich material that supports his displacement theory. I think that this rather astonishing, even fascinating, idea deserves the serious attention of anyone who concerns himself with the theory of the earth's development."
-Dr. Albert Einstein

Another interesting bit thrown down the memory hole...:munchin

My favorite Hubble photo is the one showing galaxies out to infinity. Gotta be someone or something else out there. Hope it's not the Borg...