Meteor aka asteroid hit Greenland 11800 years ago (help)

a reply to: MindBodySpiritComplex

If we want to describe the Universe as simply and completely as possible it takes but 26 dimensionless constants to get us there.

Simulation Theory or otherwise.

a reply to: Snarl

The tiniest elements and all the rest that comprise our Earth have been around since the stars, supernova, that spat them out.

The very first stars likely formed when the Universe was about 100 million years old prior to the formation of the first galaxies.

As to the blackhole at the centre of our galaxy, the stuff in-between, never mind the nature of the singularity makes observation and measurements somewhat problematic.

originally posted by: andy06shake
The tiniest elements and all the rest that comprise our Earth have been around since the stars, supernova, that spat them out.

That's theoretical too though. No one's been able to observe a supernova anymore than they've been able to observe a blackhole ... or even if it 'is'. They only see what they can guess at.

a reply to: Snarl

Light elements like Hydrogen and Helium formed during the big bang, and those up to iron are made by fusion of the cores of stars.

Heavier elements like Gallium and Bromine need something more, such as a Supernova.

Whilst the others such as Gold and Uranium, the elements that are the most neutron-rich, probobly require a process called rapid neutron capture to come about, which Scientists have long suspected are come about when neutron stars kilonova.

If you have a better explanation im all ears.

As to the observation of Blackholes.

Here you go. www.sciencemag.org...

originally posted by: andy06shake
If you have a better explanation I'm all ears.

Ha!! I wish I did!!

Whilst the others such as Gold and Uranium, the elements that are the most neutron-rich, probobly require a process called rapid neutron capture to come about, which Scientists have long suspected are come about when neutron stars kilonova.

Common sense kicking here, but ... the explosion of a neutron star (or the explosion of any star for that matter) would leave me with the idea of ... well an explosion projecting 'stuff' out in all directions with more violence than we've ever experienced on the planet. The theory that heavier elements could coalesce (or be found intact) after the experience of such a violent event ... just fails.

a reply to: Snarl

And yet we manage to mine these heavier coalesced elements down here without failure.

As to an explosion projecting "stuff" in all directions with more violence than we've ever experienced on the planet.

Well relatively speaking there is more space between the atoms that there is between stars but the universe is a big place, we are only little, and that does not do the comment justice.

originally posted by: andy06shake
And yet we manage to mine these heavier coalesced elements down here without failure.

Must mean there's more going on at the core of our planet than scientists credit it with.

a reply to: Snarl

The Earth's core is apparently made largely of iron, split into two parts, the small, crystallized ball of hardened iron at the centre of the Earth is called the inner core, and a liquid outer core that surrounds the inner core with a roiling mass of molten metal which generates our planets its magnetic life sustaining field.

As to what really down there, its never an environment we are ever going to be able to transverse or visit via anything other than radiowaves, given the temperatures and pressures.

a reply to: Snarl


" The theory that heavier elements could coalesce (or be found intact) after the experience of such a violent event ... just fails." Yet that is what happens. Sub atomic particles are a hardy lot.


www.youtube.com... may help you understand the physical processes involved.

a reply to: cmdrkeenkid

Mate there is plenty of evidence that our sun does a micronova. Why do you think our sea levels keep dropping hundreds of meters? A nova evaporates it, the world becomes steamy, rains for days and days, sun goes dark for a bit, then it snows and snows and the world enters another ice age. Its a cyclic system.

a reply to: DaRAGE

There has never been any observed phenomena as a 'micronova' in our sun or other stars. If it were a common event, as you claim every 12000 years or so, it would be happening in other stars. This would almost be certainly observed in other G-V stars, like our sun, as they are quite common.

It has not.

Graham Hancock and Randell Carlson , and all their associated research with mainstream geologists and archaeologists pretty much own the cataclysm of ~12,900 to 11,700 years BP, which corresponds to the anomalies of the YD. They have pretty much proved it by correlating the field geologists findings with their own research. If it was not for them, it would still be pseudo-science as the chairs of big science boffed them from the get go.

The dates of the cataclysm are pretty solid with them, since it covers so many locations on the Laurentide ice sheet (Artic, Canada) as well as parts of northern Europe, Greenland and parts of the Mid West and South Eastern America. You will never get an EXACT date, as nothing exists to provide such granularity but they seem to think they can narrow 2 events to within 100 years, which is quite astounding.

The speculation is for objects in the Taurid meteor streams and remnants of comet Encke. The Earth passes through them twice a year.

a reply to: cmdrkeenkid

Wrong.



Star nova again and again and again

The north and south poles of the sun blow out and we all get hit with a dust cloud that comes out the middle. Kiuper belt is the remains of previous dust clouds.

photo

a reply to: DaRAGE

Laughable.

I'll gladly read a 30k word dissertation that's been peer reviewed and by accredited scientists than watch the twenty minute ravings of a lunatic with some video editing skills.

Where is the observational evidence of this process in other stars? You neglected to address that previously.

a reply to: DaRAGE

Looks like you edited in a link to a photo.

Here is a link explaining what that is, how it doesn't support your assertions, and it only an artist's impression.

You’ll want to search for things such as the Younger Dryas Impact Event or Clovis Comet Hypothesis.

The thing is, the impact theory is relatively new. And while there is mounting evidence that there was an impact, we haven’t painted the whole picture yet. What isn’t new is the destruction that was caused in the time period. There’s tons of stuff out there like the Younger Dryas Event, Scablands, mass extinction of mega fauna, legends from ancient people.

It’s all one big puzzle that needs put together and the evidence of an impact event seems to be the key to putting it all together.

Honestly, of the best books around on the subject is Magicians of the Gods by Graham Hancock. He puts together a lot of evidence that something big happened around 13,000 years ago. And while he gets a bad wrap for some of his ramblings and off the wall ideas, keep in mind that he is a journalist and with the exception of his own opinions, his work is backed by tons of references. So I do recommend Magicians of the Gods as a great starting point for diving down this rabbit hole.

I saw a meteor once and I couldn't understand why it kept getting bigger and bigger.

And then it hit me.

a reply to: cmdrkeenkid

hi there,

sorry to clarify ....

are you saying there is no such process as a Micro Nova ?

thanks
snoopyuk

a reply to: snoopyuk

Exactly that. I even said so in my first post within this thread.

originally posted by: TexasTruth
It’s impossible to know the exact date. Anyone telling you that is a conman trying to sell you something or a crazy person.

You are asking for a year of the biblical flood that took out most of humanity.

Graham Hancock is not a conman and the closest he gets is 12,500 years ago. If he’s within 1000 years, that’s pretty damn accurate. In his books Fingerprints of the Gods and Magicians of the Gods he goes deep into these theories.

Try those instead of asking for a day.

Greenland is a special case though, we have ice cores from there going back many thousands of years. Getting an accurate date from the impact site itself might be impossible, but what might be possible is if the impactor included materials not commonly deposited every year in Greenland, and then a layer of unusual deposits is found, which gets thicker when you get closer to the impact crater, wouldn't that be a pretty good sign that particular layer in the ice core is a sign of when the impactor hit? Then it's a question of how accurately you could date that layer of the ice core, which may not be perfect but it might be better than you think. That said, I haven't yet seen a reliable source for the date and would be interested to see it if anybody else has.

Greenland ice core project

Studies of isotopes and various atmospheric constituents in the core have revealed a detailed record of climate variability reaching more than 100,000 years back in time.

Interesting climate record from 11,000 to 15,000 years ago in Greenland:

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: andy06shake
The tiniest elements and all the rest that comprise our Earth have been around since the stars, supernova, that spat them out.

That's theoretical too though. No one's been able to observe a supernova anymore than they've been able to observe a blackhole ... or even if it 'is'. They only see what they can guess at.

We observe many supernovae. The best observation may have been in 1987 where it was observed not only visible light, but also in other frequencies, and even our neutrino particle detectors observed the event, before we could see the light.

Supernova Observations

The overall energy in these neutrinos was truly astounding. In the initial second of the event, as we noted earlier in our general discussion of supernovae, their total luminosity exceeded the luminosity of all the stars in over a billion galaxies. And the supernova generated this energy in a volume less than 50 kilometers in diameter! Supernovae are one of the most violent events in the universe, and their light turns out to be only the tip of the iceberg in revealing how much energy they produce.

In 1987, the neutrinos from SN 1987A were detected by two instruments—which might be called “neutrino telescopes”—almost a full day before Shelton’s observations. (This is because the neutrinos get out of the exploding star more easily than light does, and also because you don’t need to wait until nightfall to catch a “glimpse” of them.)