The least sea ice in 800 years

Jul 01, 2009
There has never been so little sea ice in the area between Svalbard and Greenland in the last 800 years. Credit: NASA/GSFC.

New research, which reconstructs the extent of ice in the sea between Greenland and Svalbard from the 13th century to the present indicates that there has never been so little sea ice as there is now. The research results from the Niels Bohr Institute, among others, are published in the scientific journal, Climate Dynamics.

There are of course neither nor instrumental records of the climate all the way back to the 13th century, but nature has its own 'archive' of the climate in both ice cores and the annual growth rings of trees and we humans have made records of a great many things over the years - such as observations in the log books of ships and in harbour records. Piece all of the information together and you get a picture of how much there has been throughout time.

Modern research and historic records

"We have combined information about the climate found in ice cores from an ice cap on Svalbard and from the annual growth rings of trees in Finland and this gave us a curve of the past climate" explains Aslak Grinsted, geophysicist with the Centre for Ice and Climate at the Niels Bohr Institute at the University of Copenhagen.

In order to determine how much sea ice there has been, the researchers needed to turn to data from the logbooks of ships, which whalers and fisherman kept of their expeditions to the boundary of the sea ice. The ship logbooks are very precise and go all the way back to the 16th century. They relate at which geographical position the ice was found. Another source of information about the ice are records from harbours in Iceland, where the severity of the winters have been recorded since the end of the 18th century.

By combining the curve of the with the actual historical records of the distribution of the ice, researchers have been able to reconstruct the extent of the sea ice all the way back to the 13th century. Even though the 13th century was a warm period, the calculations show that there has never been so little sea ice as in the 20th century.

In the middle of the 17th century there was also a sharp decline in sea ice, but it lastet only a very brief period. The greatest cover of sea ice was in a period around 1700-1800, which is also called the 'Little Ice Age'.

"There was a sharp change in the ice cover at the start of the 20th century," explains Aslak Grinsted. He explains, that the ice shrank by 300.000 km2 in the space of ten years from 1910-1920. So you can see that there have been sudden changes throughout time, but here during the last few years we have had some record years with very little ice extent.

"We see that the sea ice is shrinking to a level which has not been seen in more than 800 years", concludes Aslak Grinsted.

More information: dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00382-009-0610-z

Source: University of Copenhagen

Explore further: NASA balloons begin flying in Antarctica for 2014 campaign

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Sea level rise of 1 meter within 100 years

Jan 08, 2009

New research indicates that the ocean could rise in the next 100 years to a meter higher than the current sea level - which is three times higher than predictions from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate ...

Arctic global warming may be irreversible

Mar 14, 2006

Scientists, noting sea ice in the Arctic has failed to form for the second consecutive winter, fear global warming may be irreversible in polar areas.

Winter Sea Ice Fails to Recover, Down to Record Low

Apr 06, 2006

Scientists at NSIDC announced that March 2006 shows the lowest Arctic winter sea ice extent since the beginning of the satellite record in 1979 (see Figures 1 and 2). Sea ice extent, or the area of ocean that ...

New method to estimate sea ice thickness

Mar 05, 2008

Scientists recently developed a new modeling approach to estimate sea ice thickness. This is the only model based entirely on historical observations.

Melting ice prompts navigation warning

Oct 29, 2007

The U.S.-based International Ice Charting Working Group predicted significant navigation hazards will develop as Arctic sea ice diminishes.

Recommended for you

Scientists make strides in tsunami warning since 2004

10 hours ago

The 2004 tsunami led to greater global cooperation and improved techniques for detecting waves that could reach faraway shores, even though scientists still cannot predict when an earthquake will strike.

Trade winds ventilate the tropical oceans

11 hours ago

Long-term observations indicate that the oxygen minimum zones in the tropical oceans have expanded in recent decades. The reason is still unknown. Now scientists at the GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research ...

User comments : 77

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Quantum_Conundrum
2.6 / 5 (18) Jul 01, 2009
bogus:

I just saw a television program a few weeks ago, about ancient civilizations, which showed how some Native tribe in the Americas had mapped the LAND MASS of antarctica to modern satellite age degree of accuracy several thousand years ago. The only way this could be possible is if the ice wasn't there at all when the map was drawn.

This was not on a crackpot television show, but was on either the History Channel or Nation Geographic, I forget which.
Megadeth312
2.8 / 5 (16) Jul 01, 2009
bogus:



I just saw a television program a few weeks ago, about ancient civilizations, which showed how some Native tribe in the Americas had mapped the LAND MASS of antarctica to modern satellite age degree of accuracy several thousand years ago. The only way this could be possible is if the ice wasn't there at all when the map was drawn.



This was not on a crackpot television show, but was on either the History Channel or Nation Geographic, I forget which.



Agreed, I've seen it too.
deatopmg
3.7 / 5 (12) Jul 01, 2009
""There was a sharp change in the ice cover at the start of the 20th century," explains Aslak Grinsted. He explains, that the ice shrank by 300.000 km2 in the space of ten years from 1910-1920. So you can see that there have been sudden changes throughout time, but here during the last few years we have had some record years with very little ice extent.""
Wasn't this long before there was enough man made CO2 to cause this effect? Then what caused it?
daqman
4.1 / 5 (10) Jul 01, 2009
bogus:
This was not on a crackpot television show, but was on either the History Channel or Nation Geographic, I forget which.


Sorry, both of those channels are well known for giving crackpot ideas air time.
MatthiasF
3.3 / 5 (17) Jul 01, 2009

Sorry, both of those channels are well known for giving crackpot ideas air time.


So, shows talking about historical mysteries are now "crackpots" but scientific theories devised to fit political goals aren't?

You mind has an interesting metric for reality.
Ethelred
3.4 / 5 (14) Jul 01, 2009
The only way this could be possible is if the ice wasn't there at all when the map was drawn.


Or someone hungry for publicity made it up. Do you really believe that Amerinds without a boat fit to cross oceans and no writing made a map of the Antarctic that long ago? I do hope you are joking.

----------------------------------

Rick6 are you kidding everyone?

Giving those posts a five?

Based on what? Entertainment for those that find gullibility hilarious?

Ethelred
Quantum_Conundrum
2.5 / 5 (13) Jul 01, 2009
Ethelred:

Apparantly a civilization allegedly "without writing" made cities and structures we would definitely have trouble making today.

How could a civilization in Bolivia ~15,000 years ago make a city out of monolithic dolomites weighing 800 metric tons, cut to laser precision, quarried from "somewhere" (nobody is sure where, it isn't on the site or anywhere near it,) packed 3000 meters above sea level up a mountain, and stacked 3 and 4 high, interlocking? How can anyone who does not have writing make that structure, part of which is still standing?

Idiot.

They DID have writing, and maybe even modern computers. What the hell happened to it, nobody knows, but they couldn't make that with stone tools and simple machines. The structures I saw on that program put even the egyptian pyramids to shame, though admittedly only relatively small portins of the walls remain, but it HAS been 15,000-17,000 years... so lets give them a little break shall we? We can't seem to make something in modern times that lasts ten years without continual maintenance....

Also, it is verifiable fact that the Mayans had writing in the form of Heiroglyphics, which the surviving documents have mostly been translated. Sadly, spanish priests destroyed many of their parchments as heretical doctines, and the ironic thing is the mayan "bible" was one of the things that ended up being preserved. Anyway, they had writing, as anyone who understands mathematics, astronomy, and geometry beyond counting on their fingers must have a written language.

Why should you think that the other native civilizations didn't have writing?

In fact, that was part of the whole point of the show, the notion that perhaps some ancient civilizations were far more advanced than we give them credit for. Obviously they had to be to move such large objects cut to such a degree of precision. It would be extremely difficult to re-construct those ruins even using modern computers, tools, and transport technologies, but people like you expect me to believe that some idiots who couldn't even read and write made them using nothing but stone tools and "manpower".
Damon_Hastings
4 / 5 (12) Jul 01, 2009
The only way this could be possible is if the ice wasn't there at all when the map was drawn.

Or someone hungry for publicity made it up. Do you really believe that Amerinds without a boat fit to cross oceans and no writing made a map of the Antarctic that long ago? I do hope you are joking.

I saw a documentary on the History Channel a few years ago claiming that Aztec or Mayan culture (I can't remember which) was built by aliens.
Quantum_Conundrum
3.1 / 5 (15) Jul 01, 2009
""There was a sharp change in the ice cover at the start of the 20th century," explains Aslak Grinsted. He explains, that the ice shrank by 300.000 km2 in the space of ten years from 1910-1920. So you can see that there have been sudden changes throughout time, but here during the last few years we have had some record years with very little ice extent.""

Wasn't this long before there was enough man made CO2 to cause this effect? Then what caused it?


100% natural phenomena.

There have been quite huge fluctuations in sea level world wide in the past 2000 years. There are sunken cities off the coast of Israel in the Mediteranean which are currently tens or even scores of feet under water, which in the past were obviously at least several feet above sea level(some time during the period of Herod the Great, approximately just before or around the time of the New Testament of the Bible being written).


The earth experiences extremely drastic changes of many different types quite frequently.

Subsidence
Geologic uplift and subduction
Earthquakes
Tsunami
volcanism
meteors/comets (see tunguska, no crater)
Solar flares and corona mass ejections


Seveal of these can explain the melting of ice due to one reason or another. A volcano that errupts slowly, rather than explosively, will melt all the ice on itself and surrounding areas, without producing the cooling effect of a tambora or Krakatoa, since a slow erruption doesn't eject sulfates into the upper atmosphere. A glacier, or even an ice cap, is nothing compared to cubic miles of thousand-plus degrees lava.

A period of increased solar activity, flares, and mass ejections could melt ice caps if the earth was "unlucky" enough to be directly in the line of fire. i.e. something "hot enough" to melt the ice, but cool enough to not kill all life.

An air burst from a comet or meteor, like that in tunguska, directly over a glacier or ice cap could melt hundreds or even thousands of years worth of glacial ice. Tunguska sized comets and meteors causing air burst collisions are estimated to hit the earth an average of about once every hundred years or so. Obviously, some of these would hit polar ice caps, melting hundreds of cubic miles of ice in a matter of seconds.


I could probably sit here and type several scores of other 100% natural, "it could happen tomorrow" scenarios to explain ice cap and glacier melts, each of which almost certainly HAVE happened at least a few times in the past several thousand years.
Damon_Hastings
3.2 / 5 (11) Jul 01, 2009
They DID have writing, and maybe even modern computers.

So your argument is that global warming is bogus because an ancient culture with modern technology used that technology to map the Antarctic coastline thousands of years ago? Call Obama. We need to cancel the cap-and-trade program right away!
Damon_Hastings
3.3 / 5 (14) Jul 01, 2009
100% natural phenomena.

It is true that the Earth was much warmer and wetter (and had more CO2) in the past than now. That's not the troublesome part. The troublesome part is the *rate of change*. And the rate of change has been staggering. Such rates of change are only seen in the geologic record when some global catastrophe happened, such as a huge meteor strike or the eruption of an entire chain of volcanoes. The current rate of change of CO2, for example, is unprecedented within at least the past 2 million years (which is as far back as I could find records with sufficient resolution.) Ecosystems and human civilizations are not harmed so much by the temperature, CO2 levels, or glacial extent -- they're harmed by the *rate of change* of these things. Humans (and life in general) can only adapt so fast without a serious period of... discomfort.
Quantum_Conundrum
2.7 / 5 (12) Jul 01, 2009
They DID have writing, and maybe even modern computers.


So your argument is that global warming is bogus because an ancient culture with modern technology used that technology to map the Antarctic coastline thousands of years ago? Call Obama. We need to cancel the cap-and-trade program right away!


No, you are now comparing two seperate arguments.

It was actually two different civilizations.

1) I mention the ancient mapping of antarctica, some idiot, ethelred, scoffed at the idea that an native American civilization, who he claims had no writing, could have had the technology to map the continent.

2) in response, I mentioned two examples of civilizations in America, one of which DEFINITELY had writing, geometry, and astronomy to rival any ni history, of which we have 4 surviving documents. The other of which certainly must have had these things, though they have no surviving documents.
===

There is not necessarily a connection between these two civilizations, as they existed eons apart, nor did I ever say there was a connection.

My only point in mentioning it was to show how idiotic and mis-informed (or else wilfully ignorant,) ethelred's statements were. NOBODY could have constructed those ruins in their original form without writing and very advanced understanding of geometry and mathematics (which requires writing, or else a photographic memory and perfect verbal communication.)
barakn
3.7 / 5 (9) Jul 01, 2009
The map referred to here is probably the Piri Reis map. One strange fact about the alleged Antarctic continent on that map is that it is drawn as a contiguous extension of South America.

If the map was drawn from a source created during a time when the shores of Antarctica were indeed ice-free, then sea level would have been higher (the ice had to go somewhere, and to the oceans it went). This raises a paradox - there is no land bridge between South America and Antarctica now and there was less likely to be a land bridge when sea level was higher. Some at this point might invoke the myth of Atlantis and land that sinks beneath the waves, but we're already wandering into crackpot territory.

The other possibility is that the Antarctic shoreline was not ice-free but was measured by some sort of ice-penetrating remote-sensing equipment, performed during the middle of an ice age when sea levels were lower and a mythical land bridge extended between the two continents. The beings using the remote-sensing equipment were either Atlanteans or aliens and... crackpot territory again.

Careful perusal of the Piri Reis map reveals that the "Antarctic coast" is actually Patagonia, drawn at an odd angle because the map-maker was running out of room on the parchment.

Of course this might not be the map in question. I love how the most specific anyone can be about the source is "I saw it on the History Channel." If anyone know which map(s) the alleged show discussed, please let us know.
Quantum_Conundrum
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 01, 2009
Careful perusal of the Piri Reis map reveals that the "Antarctic coast" is actually Patagonia, drawn at an odd angle because the map-maker was running out of room on the parchment.

Of course this might not be the map in question. I love how the most specific anyone can be about the source is "I saw it on the History Channel." If anyone know which map(s) the alleged show discussed, please let us know.


Definitely not the same map. The map you are talking about was made by an ottoman-turkish admiral. I am talking about something which was definitely made by a native american indian tribe.

I admit you are right it is pathetic in that I cannot remember the exact details about the tribe and etc, but I guess I can try to find a link to it online...
Quantum_Conundrum
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 01, 2009
An excerpt from the second article that came up on a keyword search:

http://www.crysta...aco.html

Around the turn of the 20th century Bolivian scholar Arthur Broznansky began a fifty year study of the ruins of Tiahuanaco. Using astronomical information, he concluded that the city was constructed more than 17,000 years ago long before any civilization was supposed to have existed. He considered Tiahuanaco to be the 'Cradle of Civilization'.

While restoring the city, huge staples were found between the stones. A groove was carve in the edge and molton liquids were poured within, which hardened, forming this staple.


This impies metal working technology 17,000 years ago which equalled or exceeded anything anyone else achieved ever again up until a few hundred years ago.

===

In another passage, just down the page, we see that this South American civilization carved ELEPHANTS in its monolith structures. This means they had shipping and access and contact to Africa and Asia!! Which makes Ethelred's remarks look even dumber.

===

Ethelred:

Here it is, Puma Punku.

How the HELL could anyone build this without writing, as you claim?

Puma Punku doesn%u2019t look impressive: a hill as remains of an old pyramid and
a large number of megalithic block of stone on the ground, evidently smashed by a devastating earthquake. However, closer inspection shows that these stone blocks have been fabricated with a very advanced technology. Even more surprising
is the technical design of these blocks shown in the drawing below. All blocks fit together like interlocking building blocks....

...This stone technology plainly contradicts what official archaeology suggests about the general state of development
of the ancient peoples of South-America.

...Posnansky suggested an answer, based upon his studies of the astronomical alignments of Tiahuanaco, but that answer is considered so controversial, even impossible, that it has been ignored and censured by the scientific community for fifty years.


http://www.world-...pl_6.htm



Quantum_Conundrum
2.1 / 5 (7) Jul 01, 2009
Anyway, explain how these people could build this stuff with nothing but stone tools and no writing, and as well have carvings of an animal unique to africa and asia on its buildings without good shipping and writing.


Explain all this to any reasonable degree of satisfaction, and I'll retract my even mentioning any of this as part of my argument that the original article is bogus.
dcoder
4 / 5 (4) Jul 01, 2009
me: "I can see the 'Bermuda Triangle' in the Piri Reis map!"

j/k, I think we all need a cut from Ockham's [sic] razor...
dcoder
3 / 5 (2) Jul 01, 2009
also re: the Nat Geo channel show, was it "Is it Real?"

http://channel.na...Overview

click on 'Episodes' and 'Ancient Astronauts' - they mention ice-less Antarctica... and then put the rest of these episodes into context...
Quantum_Conundrum
2.1 / 5 (7) Jul 01, 2009
More on the "illiterate non-sea faring people" at Puma Punku...

(views presented by video makers do not necessarily reflect my own. I only use the videos so nay-sayers can actually SEE what we are here discussing.)

http://www.youtub...pOAEm7mQ

http://www.youtub...tB07EsY4&feature=fvw

http://www.youtub...E9bVqe8M&feature=related

http://www.youtub...QeGLcKsU&feature=related

http://www.youtub...3DeRS83A&feature=related

This is an excerpt from the video I actually saw...
http://www.youtub...PXvwevVA&feature=related

I am not saying this was built by space aliens. I do not even believe in the existence of space aliens, and certainly don't believe any have visited earth.

I do, however, believe some of these ancient civilizations may well have been more advanced in at least some ways than we currently are now.

I literally got chills when I watched the part on Puma Punku for the first time. Not that it matters I guess, but its almost like the opening of a long awaited epic movie or something.
Quantum_Conundrum
2.1 / 5 (7) Jul 01, 2009
This is something I had not previously known.

http://www.youtub...LudVl_A0&feature=related

http://www.youtub...mJiUe9NY&NR=1

http://www.youtub...bC4f75Us&feature=related

http://www.youtub...ZGbr0g_4&feature=related

Again, views expressed by the authors do not necessarily reflect my own. this is just to show the naysayers some of the structures constructed by these "illiterates".
Quantum_Conundrum
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 01, 2009
More on our "illiterate" native americans.







horizontal terracing seen on many hills around the lake seem to have been designed to collect and hold rain water to create additional farming land. However, the vertical features that are far more extensive on the Altiplano are composed of rock piles and in some places they are hewn into the bed rock itself. Vertical walls of earth and rock cannot have been built to hold water. Some areas exhibit rectangular cells, others, perfect circles.








http://www.offici...ants.htm







It is also remarkable that the knotted configurations of quipus seem to have been carved into the bedrock of hills rising above sediment that was deposited over the bedrock itself. This suggests that the age of these features is in excess of many thousands of years....


...A recent excavation of the ruins near Tiahuanaco. Note the six foot layer of water borne sediment at the altitude, 12,500 feet.

Quantum_Conundrum
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 01, 2009
Quantum_Conundrum
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 01, 2009
fizzbliss
2.2 / 5 (9) Jul 02, 2009
Did you really just put one of your sources as the site crystal links? Seriously? o.O
jeffsaunders
5 / 5 (2) Jul 02, 2009
Anyway the article in question says nothing about ancient civilizations anywhere.

I liked it. Except I got annoyed every time I saw reference the words never and 800 years.

The sea ice has NEVER been as low as it is now and we have looked back 800 years ......

What is wrong with that sentence - The writer did this a number of times and if anybody is scanning the article instead of reading it they may come away with a completely wrong impression.
RAL
2.3 / 5 (6) Jul 02, 2009
Wow, this article explains why the Polar Bears went extinct 800 years ago... oh, wait...
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (9) Jul 02, 2009
Apparantly a civilization allegedly "without writing" made cities and structures we would definitely have trouble making today


What civilization?

How could a civilization in Bolivia ~15,000 years ago make a city out of monolithic dolomites weighing 800 metric tons,


No such civilization. Sorry you were lied to or you misinterpreted what they said. There were no city building cultures ANYWHERE in the whole world that long ago.

cut to laser precision,


Its a popular lie on these sorts of shows and after finding out just which city you were talking about I know its false. The photos show only good craftsmanship, nothing that others haven't done.

quarried from "somewhere" (nobody is sure where, it isn't on the site or anywhere near it,)


Either right on the site or up stream. Glacial stream that is. Or they moved it a lot more recently and with the usual great difficulty.

acked 3000 meters above sea level up a mountain,


Not up down. Glaciers do that. They might have used glacially dropped rocks.

How can anyone who does not have writing make that structure, part of which is still standing?

Idiot.


Well someone in this conversation is gullible if not an actual idiot. You were lied to about the dating. The people that built Machu Pichu by the way did THAT without writing. The Incas were illiterate. Messenger strings is not literacy. They had no repositories of knowledge.

They DID have writing, and maybe even modern computers.


Would you like to post a link to something that actually supports this apparently ridiculous statement regarding the computers? It feels much like something that the Atlantis fruitcakes come up with.(I found them they are Atlantis fruitcakes, with extra nuts, see farther down.)

he structures I saw on that program put even the egyptian pyramids to shame, though admittedly only relatively small portins of the walls remain, but it HAS been 15,000-17,000 years..


You can't date the time that rocks were cut. Assuming that they were cut. After seeing the reality of the city I have to say they do not put the pyramids to shame. Little does not even the more massive Mayan pyramids. The Mayan pyramids took much longer to build. They built new larger pyramids around the older pyramids. Kind of like kachinka dolls.

so lets give them a little break shall we? We can't seem to make something in modern times that lasts ten years without continual maintenance....


We can make things last. It just costs more. Rocks don't need a lot of maintenance and even you admit that much of it is simply not there anymore.

Also, it is verifiable fact that the Mayans had writing in the form of Heiroglyphics,


Of course they did. Just not 15,000 years ago. The earliest writing in the Americas, of any kind, is less than 3,000 years old.

which the surviving documents have mostly been translated.


Some of the Mayan writing has been translated. Much hasn't. However I am not aware of any actual documents just carvings on walls. Perhaps I missed or forgot about actual documents.

and the ironic thing is the mayan "bible" was one of the things that ended up being preserved.


O.K. I missed that. Let me see if it is real.

Seems to be something else than you think. Verbal retelling and then written down after the arrival of the Spanish. Actual Mayan writing has only begun to be translated in the last few decades. Much is still to be done on it.

http://mayanarcha...d10.html

Allegedly from Quiche into Spanish. But no one has seen anything other than the Spanish. Its just as possible that someone wrote down the oral tradition directly into Spanish since it was done in the 1800s.


They DID have writing, and maybe even modern computers


No. They didn't. Not 15,000 years ago. You should quit believing the Atlantis idiots. They ARE idiots. They work very hard at remaining idiots. Do yourself a favor and avoid the brain damage they try to spread around.

Yes there is writing on the walls of the city but it simply isn't 15,000 years old. It is a tenth of that for the earliest artifacts in the city. The writing may even have come later.

he structures I saw on that program put even the egyptian pyramids to shame, though admittedly only relatively small portins of the walls remain,


That is just a touch of hyperbole there now isn't it. Some Mayan pyramids do have more total mass than Cheops but Bolivia doesn't have Mayan pyramids. Nice work there though. Its just not anywhere near as massive as Mayan or even Egyptian work.

Why should you think that the other native civilizations didn't have writing?


Because the evidence is totally lacking prior to less than 3,000 years ago in the New World. Of course the place you are talking about ISN'T 15,000 years old. Its a tenth that so they could indeed have writing, unless they were Incan as they never had writing.

The walls have writing so its not Incan but then it isn't anywhere near as old as claimed.

n fact, that was part of the whole point of the show, the notion that perhaps some ancient civilizations were far more advanced than we give them credit for.


The point of the show was to make a few bucks on the advertising. As you describe it sure wasn't to be realistic.

Obviously they had to be to move such large objects cut to such a degree of precision.


I don't see any signs of precision of that nature there. Bogus claims are popular with some people when dealing with ancient cultures. They can't figure it out so its magic to them. Of course the don't WANT to figure it out since that would ruin the fantasy.

but people like you expect me to believe that some idiots who couldn't even read and write made them using nothing but stone tools and "manpower".


People make the same silly claims about the Egyptians. In Chariots of the Gods it was claimed the Egyptians didn't have rope. Funny how they recorded importing it. Weird though that they would actually import rope. Just plant some hemp.

A likely source of the bullshit that was in the show you saw:

http://www.atlant...ity.html

Yes there it is, Atlantis, what a surprise.

Some pearls from the site:

rcheology in general dates the city at c. 200 A.D., but it was not always so. Its first investigator, Prof. Arthur Posnansky, a Polish engineer who dedicated fifty years to its study, dated its origins to 15,000 B.C.


So they should know better. They want to believe the fantasy.

Strangely, Tiahuanacu appears to be a seaport (Posnansky, 1945), although the nearest body of water is Lake Titicaca, some 12-15 miles away (the distance depends on the level of the lake). There are several theories about how this happens to be. We will consider only one here.


Yes they will avoid the obvious answer that the level of the lake has gone down.

Oceanic creatures live to this day in abundance in the salty waters of the lake, indicating that it was once a part of the ocean, although it is now over 2 miles above sea-level. What appears to be the original seashore is strangely tilted, as if a tremendous geological upheaval has taken place.


How strange geological changes in Cordilleran mountains? How could that ever happen? Or rather what the hell do they find odd. Salt in an ancient lake. I suppose the they think they Great Salt Lake in Utah was connected to the ocean as well. Must be those darn aliens messing with the evidence again.

Yes that it. The aliens messed with the author of the sites head. After all there aren't any oceanic creatures in Titicaca or salt water. It is a fresh water lake. Weird how they botched even that so badly. There is just no accounting with reality when you are dealing with cranks.

One wonders, how were these blocks quarried, how were they transported from the quarries to the building site, and how did the builders manage to place these huge blocks so skillfully to form this massive complex of megalithic buildings?


Could they have possibly done it in ways similar to other ancient civilizations? Surly aliens or Atlanteans must have had a hand. Or not. I go for the locals being able to think. See the rock see the lake. Put the rock on a raft and move the thing. One at a time. Over hundreds of years. It took that long to build the place.

And above all, what tremendous forces of nature tumbled these gigantic stones over one another as if they were light as driftwood? Archeologists have not answered these questions.


He lies a lot too. The answer is obvious. The place has earthquakes. Its a cordilleran mountain range. They could have volcanoes as well. Maybe the author simply has never experienced an earthquake. They rock. And roll. And pitch. And the freeways fell down in Los Angelos. Now the pillars are tied to the road bed so that shouldn't happen again unless the pillars themselves fail.

ut could a sudden, violent tilt of the axis of the earth occuring some 12,000 years ago have been responsible? Geologist will not admit to such an occurance in spite of the evidence (see my Geology and/or Paleontology page).


I wonder why the geologists don't admit to that. Could it be because 12,000 years ago the place hadn't been built. Yep. That plus the total lack of evidence for the polar shift idea.

A clue to the date of this event is revealed in the animals represented thereon, two of which have been extinct for at least 10,000 years. Jaguars and condors are still with us, but toxodons and elephants? During the Pleistocene era Cuverionius, an elephant-like proboscid thrived in the area; but both it and the toxodon disappeared with the Pleistocene Extinction some 11,000-12,000 years ago.


Nice one. Except there aren't any such things on the block in question. Not even on his site. Funny how he doesn't show what he says is there. Could it be that he made it up. Inquiring minds want to know.

An animal (toxodon?) carved on statue


Interesting that he used a drawing and called it a carving. It never fails to happen. Claim evidence and then show drawings and not the actual object. Very popular with the fans of Noah's Big Ass Boat as well.

The combination of depictions of extinct Pleistocene animals, traces of an ancient shoreline--and to top it all, the paradox of a seaport existing at an altitude of 12,500 feet above sea level


Some paradox. The lake is STILL a VERY large lake. When it was larger it was bound to be used by boats.

That is enough of that. There wasn't one stone that needed lasers to cut. Not a sign of a map either. Writing from 1,500 years ago is in no way the same as 15,000 years ago.

The next one is even worse. They suggest that you read:

"The Lost Continent of Mu" James Churchward, William Edwin Rudge, New York 1926

"The Worlds in Collision" Immanuel Velikovsky, Doubleday, New York, 1950

These next two must be the source for the alleged map that I don't see anywhere yet.

"The Path of the Pole" Charles Hapgood, Chilton Book Company 1970

"Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings" Charles Hapgood, Chilton Book Company 1966

Another silly book:

"The Atlantis Blueprint" Colin Wilson and Rand Flem-Ath. Random House 2000 www.flem-ath.com.

One of the best books to date tying together the works of many researchers proving our expanded history beyond the limits of the present academic status quo.


The ONLY source for Atlantis is ONE UNFINISHED story about a story by Plato. Even he didn't think it was worth finishing. All the rest has been based on that and the utter fabrications of fans and frauds such as the Sleeping Fraud Edgar Cayce and the woman that took over after he died. Before that she did fortune telling.

Regarding Hapgood and the alleged maps.

http://en.wikiped..._Hapgood

The Earth's Shifting Crust which denied the existence of plate tectonics.


Well that takes care of that one. Plate tectonics are real. Of course that book was written a long time ago and I remember books back then still thought of the match between continents as a coincidence. So I won't hold that book against him. Time has marched on and Plate Tectonics is as solid a theory as the ground I live on isn't. Yeah I live in Southern California.

Hapgood's Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings used numerous archival maps, including the Piri Reis Map, which he claims show a vast southern continent roughly similar to Antarctica


Aha. The alleged map begins to materialize.

http://en.wikiped...Reis_Map

Its not Amerind. Its Ottoman. So I was right about the map as well.

Well I will give the alleged map a direct try in google. However if that is the map on the show than Quantum_conundrum is more gullible than I thought.

Well this may be part of the silliness:

http://www.world-...ar_1.htm

A map that isn't of Antartica is claimed to be one only they have to assume that it was made in 4,000 B.C which is still not 12,000 years ago. What the heck a little bit of reality never stopped an Atlantis crank.

Perhaps this is the show you saw:

http://videos.how...ideo.htm

Sorry that is only a short clip. I can't find a whole one. However it doesn't seem to be all you claim so maybe it wasn't what you saw.

Ethelred
Quantum_Conundrum
1.6 / 5 (8) Jul 02, 2009
Ethelred:

I am not going to respond to all of your points, because you are clearly denying the facts, but I will respond to some key points.

Writing

If you define "Writing" as only pen and paper, then clearly the incas didn't have writing. HOwever, only an idiot would deny that quippas certainly looks like a physical, codified form of communication which is capable of transferring and preserving knowledge both cultural and technical.

It has been shown even by the mainstream archeologists that most of the rocks came from a quarry DOWN HILL at least ten miles away, and some of them, including one ~400 ton megalith, was quarried at least several hundred miles away. Your claims that the rocks came from a higher elevation is ridiculous.


That is just a touch of hyperbole there now isn't it. Some Mayan pyramids do have more total mass than Cheops but Bolivia doesn't have Mayan pyramids. Nice work there though. Its just not anywhere near as massive as Mayan or even Egyptian work.


What is special about Pumapunku is not necessarily the total mass of any one individual structure(I think the great wall of china still has that honor.)

What is special is the technology and the size of the individual blocks of stone, as well as the precision to which these things are cut.


Could they have possibly done it in ways similar to other ancient civilizations? Surly aliens or Atlanteans must have had a hand. Or not. I go for the locals being able to think. See the rock see the lake. Put the rock on a raft and move the thing. One at a time. Over hundreds of years. It took that long to build the place.


You ARE a hypocrite. In an earlier post, you mocked the notion that they could have mapped antarctica by claiming they were poor seafarers, now you expect us to believe they had a raft or boat capable of carrying blocks like this accross an ocean, but the same people couldn't have explored another continent?

Over hundreds of years. It took that long to build the place.


Makes perfect sense. People with no writing planned a megalithic structure and then built it over a period of hundreds of years...riiiight.

It may well have taken hundreds of years to build all of this, but writing would definitely have been required.

For all practical purposes, though the Inca did not have pen and paper, they did have Quippas (which the ancient chinese apparantly also had,) and this is the same thing as writing, just in a different form.

"Writing" is "writing" whether its hieroglyphics, phonetic alphabete, cuneiform, text on a computer screen, or yes, even knots in a rope. Totally different media, but still "writing".
Quantum_Conundrum
1.9 / 5 (7) Jul 02, 2009
Also, I NEVER claimed to believe in the theory that any of this was learned from space aliens, nor did I claim to believe "Atlantis" was responsible for any of this.

In fact, I specificly stated that I do not even believe in space aliens.
Ethelred
3.9 / 5 (7) Jul 02, 2009
because you are clearly denying the facts, but I will respond to some key points.


I never denied any facts. I denied the claim of writing 15,000 years ago.

HOwever, only an idiot would deny that quippas certainly looks like a physical, codified form of communication which is capable of transferring and preserving knowledge both cultural and technical.


Only an idiot would mistake that for a repository of knowledge.

It has been shown even by the mainstream archeologists that most of the rocks came from a quarry DOWN HILL at least ten miles away, and some of them, including one ~400 ton megalith, was quarried at least several hundred miles away.


Would you like to post a link for that?

Your claims that the rocks came from a higher elevation is ridiculous.


It was a proposal. The rocks at Stonehenge came from hundreds of miles away so I wasn't saying it couldn't be done.

What is special is the technology and the size of the individual blocks of stone, as well as the precision to which these things are cut.


Well I didn't see anything that matched Machu Pichu except for two photos that WERE from Machu Pichu.

There is no special technology involved in either case. Both have been done in many areas of the world. Sometimes with only stone age technology. The Egyptians did it with copper somehow. They didn't get bronze till later.


You ARE a hypocrite


I am not. You however are gullible.

In an earlier post, you mocked the notion that they could have mapped antarctica by claiming they were poor seafarers,


They weren't seafarers at all. They lived on a lake.

now you expect us to believe they had a raft or boat capable of carrying blocks like this accross an ocean,


Who the hell claimed they crossed an ocean besides you. I sure didn't. Rafts on a lake are not ships worthy of crossing the Roaring Forties. Which you have to do to get to Antarctica.

but the same people couldn't have explored another continent?


Would you like to show us the map? Bet you can't show one that is real and from Amerinds. There is not one sign of Amerinds ever having sea worthy ships. Small boats fit for fishing yes but Roaring Forties worthy ships never.

People with no writing planned a megalithic structure and then built it over a period of hundreds of years...riiiight.


People did it all over the world. They aren't planned in any sense we would use today. Now the Egyptians did plan their pyramids. The Mayans just pasted the new one on the old one.

It may well have taken hundreds of years to build all of this, but writing would definitely have been required.


Actually it wouldn't have been required. However I did point out that they did actually have writing. They simply didn't build those things 15,000 years ago. That claim was nonsense and that is what I was disagreeing with.

and this is the same thing as writing, just in a different form.


There is no sign that they used it the same way as writing is. Besides they were not around 15,000 years ago.

Totally different media, but still "writing".


The use was different. The knots seem to have been used primarily for messages. There is still no indication that they were even used to keep track of food which is the way writing started in Sumeria.

Now how about you deal with the relevant parts. The claims of maps. The ludicrous claim that it happened 15,000 years ago. Which is what I was talking about in the first place.

Going on about much later Amerinds writing, which I never denied, sure does look like evasion to me. The sort of thing a hypocrite might do.

Ethelred
Ethelred
3.4 / 5 (5) Jul 02, 2009
Also, I NEVER claimed to believe in the theory that any of this was learned from space aliens, nor did I claim to believe "Atlantis" was responsible for any of this.


You believed people that believed Atlantis was involved. You believed it happened 15,000 years ago. You believed the Amerinds explored Antarctica. All those came from people that believe in Atlantis AND the Great Flood, which aren't compatible with each other much less the physical evidence.

In fact, I specificly stated that I do not even believe in space aliens.


Too bad. They might actually exist. They just aren't needed to explain things any more than Atlantis was. Yet the source of the nonsense you were gulled by were believers in at least one if not both of those. Maybe they don't believe in Aliens but they had Velikovsky and that leads to Von Daniken.

Now how about you quite pretending that I was claiming there wasn't writing there? It was on the walls after all. No elephants but there was writing. You sure did evade EVERYTHING that mattered.

Any bets that he ignores the relevant parts again and goes on about Von Daniken?

Sure hope that line stops that sort of nonsense.

Calling me an idiot for being right is no substitute for a reasoned response. Especially since you didn't show me to be an idiot.

Ethelred
Velanarris
4.1 / 5 (8) Jul 02, 2009
Ladies and gents, Thor Heyerdahl proved that it was quite possible, using known technology for the time period, to perform trans-oceanic voyages. He constructed a craft contemporary to the cultures of 5,000bc (early Inca/Olmec design) out of reeds and resin and sailed across the Pacific. He later had a boat constructed following later South American cultural design and sailed across a large strech of the atlantic.



It's quite possible, and in some cases the mythos of the associated cultures demand it to be so.



How else would you explain the Pacific Islanders and Atlantic carribean basin cultures?

Secondly, there is a lot of evidence in professional circles that the cultures of the Egyptians, Mayans, and other early societies traded and interacted culturally, in addition to physical evidence of some of the most well known megaliths being far older than we currently know.

For example, the deep monsoon-like weathing on the Sphinx, the proportionate alignment of the pyramids to the skies of 10,000bc, similar alignment in the ruins of teotihuacan, etc.

For references to this one can read the words of specialists like Thor Heyerdahl and Graham Handcock.
Velanarris
3.9 / 5 (7) Jul 02, 2009
In addition to this, Ethelred, these structures show evidence of incredible organization and planning. A people without the written word would have a very difficult time trying to perform these actions and constructs without a system of keeping track of materials, labor, shape, design, etc. I think it's a greater stretch to assume their engineering prowess was beyond their communicative progress.
jeffsaunders
4.7 / 5 (3) Jul 02, 2009
I think you guys are arguing at a tangent to each other.
GrayMouser
4 / 5 (1) Jul 02, 2009
In addition to this, Ethelred, these structures show evidence of incredible organization and planning. A people without the written word would have a very difficult time trying to perform these actions and constructs without a system of keeping track of materials, labor, shape, design, etc. I think it's a greater stretch to assume their engineering prowess was beyond their communicative progress.

Depends on whether they had tax collectors or not. The origin of writing goes back to accounting for taxes owed and how they were paid.
GrayMouser
5 / 5 (2) Jul 02, 2009
New research, which reconstructs the extent of ice in the sea between Greenland and Svalbard from the 13th century to the present indicates that there has never been so little sea ice as there is now.

Does anyone else wonder why they picked a starting time around the end of the Little Ice Age through the modern warming period when you would EXPECT the ice coverage to decrease?
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (6) Jul 03, 2009
Ladies and gents, Thor Heyerdahl proved that it was quite possible, using known technology for the time period, to perform trans-oceanic voyages.


He sure did. His book is fun too. But he didn't show that Amerinds actually took the trip just they could have. Keep in mind the he knew he was going somewhere. Not the same as going of into the unkown with a nearly unsteerable raft. Nearly, I know he managed to steer it a bit.

I recommend the book but it might be hard to find after all these years.

Hey its at Amazon anyway. New copies as well as used.

http://www.amazon...ep_dpi_1

That link is so going to break.

He constructed a craft contemporary to the cultures of 5,000bc (early Inca/Olmec design) out of reeds and resin and sailed across the Pacific.


I don't think there were any Olmecs on the Pacific Coast of South America. Central America though is possible since they definitely were on the Caribbean in Central America.

How else would you explain the Pacific Islanders and Atlantic carribean basin cultures?


The Pacific Islanders appear to have come from the Southeast Asia. Perhaps genetic testing has narrowed things down. Now, those guys could sail, but even with them there is no sign that they braved the Roaring Forties. That place is dangerous.

Secondly, there is a lot of evidence in professional circles that the cultures of the Egyptians, Mayans,


Well there is a lot wishful thinking that it happened anyway. The pyramids look like a case of parallel architecture. The methods of building were completely different and pyramids just simply aren't unique to the those two areas. A lot of the push in this area seems to come from Mormons who really want some evidence to support the Book of Mormon. They don't have any at all.

For example, the deep monsoon-like weathing on the Sphinx


There is strong evidence that PART of the Sphinx is very old. It looks likely the Sphinx was built on a preexisting formation. Much of the research to put the Sphinx back to 10,000 comes from, guess who, the Edgar Cayce fans.

http://en.wikiped...ar_Cayce

http://en.wikiped...htenment

The above Wiki is presently marked for deletion as it reeks of being an ad.

From:
http://en.wikiped..._of_Giza

The hypothesis has been examined by several scientists, who have published detailed criticism and rebuttal of these ideas, including two astronomers, Ed Krupp of Griffith Observatory, Los Angeles and Anthony Fairall, professor of astronomy at the University of Cape Town, South Africa. Using planetarium equipment, Krupp and Fairall independently investigated the angle between the alignment of Orion's Belt and North in c. 10 500 BC and found that the angle differed considerably from the "perfect match" claimed by Bauval and Hancock in their Orion Correlation Theory: 47-50 degrees (planetarium measurements) compared to 38 degrees (pyramids).[28] Furthermore, Krupp highlighted that the pyramids' line bent northwards, whereas Orion's Belt has a "kink" to the south,[29] which had led Bauval and Gilbert to invert the pyramid map in their publications without revealing they had done so.[30]


And the very next paragraph covers the Antlantis fans that are the source of the claims.

The Orion Correlation Theory and other similar hypotheses are used to support an overall belief in an ancient and technologically-advanced, but now vanished, global progenitor civilization (often Atlantis), a theory rejected by most archaeologists.


Inventor of claim number one.

http://en.wikiped..._Hancock

His cohort

http://en.wikiped...t_Bauval

Whenever people try to claim an ancient civilization could do things we can't and it was around or even before 10,000 years ago you find believer in Atlantis. Every single time so far.

or references to this one can read the words of specialists like Thor Heyerdahl and Graham Handcock.


Heh, I hadn't even seen that line when I found he was involved. I start commenting as I read and then go back and fix thing or even throw things out.

Early on I read posts to the bottom first. I found myself thinking of things as I went and then not being able to remember the train of thought. Commenting as I go solved that so well I find its best to stick with it at least with any post longer than a paragraph or two.

Try it if you find yourself loosing track like I did. The catch is you have to go over the whole thing again. But that is a good thing.

Ethelred
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 03, 2009
A people without the written word would have a very difficult time trying to perform these actions and constructs without a system of keeping track of materials, labor, shape, design, etc.


For one thing, despite the fantasies of Quantum, I never claimed the people that built the place didn't have writing. I said no one was writing 15,000 years ago. The earliest signs of writing in the New World is less than 3,000 years ago. There is just a little bit of difference there, a mere 12,000 years. A tiny thing. A mere pimple on the face of time.

Ethelred
Velanarris
2.7 / 5 (3) Jul 03, 2009
You're correct, my mistake on misinterpreting your words of writing.

As for the Cayce comment, unfortunately he was one of the first to say as such, and it has deeply tainted the hypothesis since it's beginning, yet, sans atlantis, and sans aliens, there is a reasonable amount of evidence pointing to either a well organized civilization of significant size, or a form of organized astronopmy/astrology leading back to the time periods several thousand years before the rise of the mesopotamian civilizations.


On the point of parallel architecture, I agree. The pyramid is the easiest stable shape available to an uneducated builder, and most likely pyramids have arisen based on how simple and effective it is, however, and I hate to use his statements as a reference, QC is right in stating that early south americans and european cultures have drawings of animals that were not contemporary to themselves, nor local by any stretch. I'll try to dig up some examples, but as we all know, trying to find well dated examples that haven't been tampered with is difficult.
AMMBD
1 / 5 (2) Jul 03, 2009
has anyone stopped to notice that many of the old North American "mysteries" maps, stone walls, etc. - are typically dated PRIOR to the NA comet explosion/impact around 13K years ago?

with the tremendous, lasting, widespread damage that has been shown to have inflicted all across NA, is it any wonder there is so little non-controversial evidence of "advanced" civ? that's just taking into consideration the direct immediate damage - add in the lingering changes to the overall ecosystems - well, there certainly wouldn't be much left now, would there?

as a comparison, look at the damage & shredded leftovers around the Med after the earthquake swarms around the time of Thera blowing it's stack (& let's not forget the tsumanis that set off)? Those events decimated the immediate region & crippled the surrounding regions - crops died, people died, civilizations died.

there's the whole 1421 business - yes, apparently the chinese did in fact globe trot their exploratory fleet all over the world.

then there's the collapse of the SouthWestern Pueblo cultures around the 11th century.

"experts" argued about the validity of anything left over those events. time & improved research tools/methods clarified & validated the events themselves.

we may see similar results on these matters.

in the meantime, let's keep the discourse civil, eh?


Skepticus
1 / 5 (2) Jul 03, 2009
Hi Ladies and Gents, it seems that interpretations of ancient historical past and findings cut quite a few raw nerves here. I'd add my 2c worth of opinion to the fray...

Archaeologists aka "bone diggers" based their careers and findings on physical evidences they can find, date and interpret using available technologies, their knowledge base, their religious beliefs, cultural biases and pride, etc.,.. of their time. In fact, a totally objective analysis of an unknown ancient relics by human judgment is an oxymoron. So, if there is nothing left to decipher, it did not exist according to hard nosed researchers. If a relic exists, it's all down to interpretation.

It reminds me of a short science fiction story I read about aliens archaeologists who landed on Earth millennias from now, who found numerous conical shaped devices made of vitrified metallic oxides, and concluded that they are designs of rocket nozzles of the extinct Terrans' flying crafts, while in fact they are ...toilet bowls.

If the object's purpose is not known, nor conforms to the "accepted" notion of the particular people/civilization progressive technological, cultural, , blah blah blah, etc., prowess over time, then it is a hoax, or presto, "primitive religious ceremonial/burial objects". It is a popular catch-all category for the consternated archaeologists who regularly dismissively dumped inadequately understandable finds into it until someone else more insightful,or additional evidence and disovery or records proves them wrong. Perhaps the Baghdad Battery is a casualty of this bias. Gunpowder, seismograph, compass, paper should not had been invented by Asians, as they are considered a lesser race by the Western world for many centuries. Writings and cultural bias references illustrating these bias are too numerous to list.

So, a completely destroyed advanced ancient civilization can't be proved not to have existed at all, nor technological oddities can be dismissively discounted out of hands. We should keep an open mind for all possibilities and willing to rewrite all our textbooks, beliefs and biases, and to act accordingly. Not to do so will be a criminal abuse of the lofty title Homo Sapiens Sapiens, "intelligent Man".
wawadave
5 / 5 (2) Jul 03, 2009
Saw it on tv. Omg every thing on tv is real...

fizzbliss
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 04, 2009
"Archaeologists aka "bone diggers" based their careers and findings on physical evidences they can find, date and interpret using available technologies, their knowledge base, their religious beliefs, cultural biases and pride, etc.,.. of their time. In fact, a totally objective analysis of an unknown ancient relics by human judgment is an oxymoron. So, if there is nothing left to decipher, it did not exist according to hard nosed researchers. If a relic exists, it's all down to interpretation."

One problem with that statement is that interpretations never boil down to the explanation of a single archaeologist. That is the beauty of science, that the data will be analyzed repeatedly and a consensus reached, thus reducing the chances of bias.

About keeping an open mind...that is a fine thing to do, but I have found that there are closed minds on both sides of these issues. One should always consider the possibility that one is incorrect, but I have found that attitude sorely lacking in a great many who believe ancient civilizations as advanced as ours existed. I would be open to solid evidence, but nothing has been brought forth thusfar that I find convincing. Until then, I remain very skeptical.
Velanarris
2.7 / 5 (3) Jul 04, 2009
About keeping an open mind...that is a fine thing to do, but I have found that there are closed minds on both sides of these issues. One should always consider the possibility that one is incorrect, but I have found that attitude sorely lacking in a great many who believe ancient civilizations as advanced as ours existed.
Well at least you can be vindicated in your thought as in the past decade alone we've discovered that present civilization did not invent the battery, the continuous vacuum pump, the basis for the combustion engine, and many other "modern" constructs. Many of those achievments can now be awarded to the cultures of Persia and the Middle East.
jay66
not rated yet Jul 05, 2009




--------------------------------------------------



"... the Inca ... dominions at their height covered almost all of the Andean region, from Colombia to Chile, until they were defeated in the Spanish conquest of 1532. ... Gary Urton, professor of anthropology at Harvard University, has re-analysed the complicated knotted strings of the Inca - decorative objects called khipu - and found they contain a seven-bit binary code capable of conveying more than 1,500 separate units of information. ... there are, theoretically, seven points in the making of a khipu where the maker could make a simple choice between two possibilities, a seven-bit binary code. For instance, he or she could choose between weaving a string made of cotton or of wool, or they could weave in a "spin" or "ply" direction, or hang the pendant from the front of the primary string or from the back. In a strict seven-bit code this would give 128 permutations (two to the power of seven) but Professor Urton said because there were 24 possible colours that could be used in khipu construction, the actual permutations are 1,536 (or two to the power of six, multiplied by 24). This could mean the code used by the makers allowed them to convey some 1,536 separate units of information, comparable to the estimated 1,000 to 1,500 Sumerian cuneiform signs, and double the number of signs in the hieroglyphs of the ancient Egyptians and the Maya of Central America. If Professor Urton is right, it means the Inca not only invented a form of binary code more than 500 years before the invention of the computer, but they used it as part of the only three-dimensional written language"



http://www.valdos...civ.html

this site also talks about global travel

---------------------------------------------------
jay66
not rated yet Jul 05, 2009
Sunken City Off India Coast 7500 B. C.


"Even if we don't know what the cultural background of the people is, if it does happen to be a city that is 9500 years old, that is older than the Sumerian civilization by several thousand years. It is older than the Egyptian, older than the Chinese. So it would radically affect our whole picture of the development of urban civilization on this planet.

Now, if it further happens that additional research is able to identify the culture of the people who lived in that city that's now underwater. If it turns out they are a Vedic people - which I think is quite probable given the location of this off the coast of India - I think that would radically change the whole picture of Indian history which has basically been written by western archaeologists."


http://www.hermet...bay.html



OPEN YOUR MIND















Ethelred
1 / 5 (1) Jul 05, 2009
however, and I hate to use his statements as a reference, QC is right in stating that early south americans and european cultures have drawings of animals that were not contemporary to themselves, nor local by any stretch.


I will believe when I see one. One that is representational. Which I admit isn't going to happen even if a T-Rex was seen by 100,000 Aztecs and 400 Spaniards as it ran across the plaza in from of the Pyramid of the Sun. Amerinds simply were in the habbit of stylizing the wall paintings and carvings.

Haven't see such for Europeans either unless you are calling paintings of gryphons and dragons and animal crackers as being evidence for their existence. Now the Minoans did paint pictures of extinct animals. Those huge bulls were real. Aurocs went extinct after the Minoan civilization disappeared.

there is a reasonable amount of evidence pointing to either a well organized civilization of significant size, or a form of organized astronopmy/astrology leading back to the time periods several thousand years


Again I haven't seen anything that can hold up to scrutiny. Slightly older then the fertile crescent maybe. Astronomy can and has been done by many illiterate cultures.

Ethelred
Dodgy
not rated yet Jul 05, 2009
In the middle of the 17th century there was also a sharp decline in sea ice, but it lasted only a very brief period.... There was a sharp change in the ice cover at the start of the 20th century," explains Aslak Grinsted. He explains, that the ice shrank by 300.000 km2 in the space of ten years from 1910-1920. So you can see that there have been sudden changes throughout time, but here during the last few years we have had some record years with very little ice extent.

Doesn't this show that sudden drops in Ice cover occasionally occur, are normal, and are NOT only caused by anthropic CO2? In which case this paper does NOT support the human-caused global warming hypothesis...
Velanarris
5 / 5 (3) Jul 05, 2009
You mind has an interesting metric for reality.

Fuck you

Looks like he struck a nerve.
Ethelred
2.8 / 5 (4) Jul 05, 2009
OPEN YOUR MIND


Yes. Open your mind to reality. Reality, what a concept.

Keep an open mind. But not so far open your brains fall out.

Please pick up your brains on the way out. The Urantians and Atlanteans are through injecting it with experimental drugs they obtained from Xenu and Ralph the Wonder Dog. Please come back next week as The Bavarian Illuminati found your brain useful as a doorstop while planning coming take over of the Pentium Group.

Ethelred
jay66
1 / 5 (2) Jul 05, 2009
---------------------------------------------------

"Please pick up your brains on the way out. The Urantians and Atlanteans are through injecting it with experimental drugs they obtained from Xenu and Ralph the Wonder Dog. Please come back next week as The Bavarian Illuminati found your brain useful as a doorstop while planning coming take over of the Pentium Group."

---------------------------------------------------

And your intelligent point is what???

jay66
2 / 5 (4) Jul 05, 2009


Earth on the Brink of an Ice Age



2005 - Hundreds of Children May Have Died in Afghanistan's Extreme Cold (The New York Times, February 18, 2005)

2005 - Cold, snow, rain, avalanches kill more than 1,000 in Asia (USA Today, February 23, 2005)

2005 - Global warming or global cooling? (The Times of India, February 27, 2005)

2005 - Boston Endures Record Cold From Frigid North Atlantic (Bloomberg, May 25, 2005)

2005 - Record Cold From Montana To Texas (CBS News, December 7, 2005)

2006 - Japan Had Coldest December in 20 Years, Record Snow (Bloomberg, January 5, 2006)

2006 - Delhi gets its coldest day in over 70 years (The Times of India, January 8, 2006)

2006 - Cold wave in north India kills over 150 (The Times of India, January 9, 2006)

2006 - Record-Low Temperatures Sweep Across Russia (NPR, January 20, 2006)

2006 - Russia Weathering Deadly Cold Spell, At Least 31 Dead (CBS News, January 20, 2006)

2006 - Record cold has killed 49 so far this winter in Mexico (The Miami Herald, January 21, 2006)

2006 - Jack Frost cripples Europe with minus 33 (The Age, January 22, 2006)

2006 - 123 Die in Russia's Bitter Cold (Reuters, January 23, 2006)

2006 - Cold weather death toll rises to 150 in Poland (AFP, January 23, 2006)

2006 - Polish Hall Roof Collapses Under Snow, Killing 66 (Bloomberg, January 29, 2006)

2006 - Earth in for another "ice age" in mid-century - scientist (RIA Novosti, February 6, 2006)

2006 - Record cold snap killed 738 people in Ukraine (The Independent, UK, February 7, 2006)

2006 - A Record Snow: 26.9 Inches Fall in New York City (The New York Times, February 13, 2006)

2006 - Moscow Market Roof Collapses Under Snow, Killing 56 (The New York Times, February 24, 2006)

2006 - There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998 (The Daily Telegraph, UK, April 9, 2006)

2006 - Russian Scientist Issues Global Cooling Warning (RIA Novosti, August 25, 2006)

2006 - Snow in Sept: Freak weather continues (The Times of India, September 3, 2006)

2006 - Short-Term Ocean Cooling Suggests Global Warming 'Speed Bump' (Science Daily, September 21, 2006)

2006 - Cold weather's 25,000 deaths toll is scandal, say charities (The Guardian, UK, October 28, 2006)

2006 - Snow falls in central Florida as state endures unusual Nov. cold snap (USA Today, November 22, 2006)

2006 - Record cold in Salt Lake City (Deseret News, November 29, 2006)

2006 - The Coldest Year In The Last Five Years (The Reference Frame, December 16, 2006)

2006 - Cold spell drops SoCal temps to record levels (The San Diego Union-Tribune, December 19, 2006)

2007 - Indian Cold Wave Death Toll Hits 90 (Arab News, January 4, 2007)

2007 - Record cold snap for the nation's hottest town (The Australian, January 05, 2007)

2007 - Death toll climbs to 16 as winter blast grips East, Midwest (USA Today, January 8, 2007)

2007 - Record cold seen for rest of week (The San Diego Union-Tribune, January 14, 2007)

2007 - Freezing temperatures destroy most of California citrus crop (International Herald Tribune, January 16, 2007)

2007 - Thousands Shiver As Storm Toll Hits 54 (CBS News, January 17, 2007)

2007 - Winter Hits With A Vengeance; 7 Dead (CBS News, February 6, 2007)

2007 - Snow Records Fall As N.Y. Towns Dig Out of 12 Feet Of Snow (CBS News, February 12, 2007)

2007 - The Coming Global Cooling? (World Climate Report, March 16, 2007)

2007 - Spring reverts to winter weather (The Seattle Times, April 9, 2007)

2007 - Record cold takes a toll on crops (USA Today, April 9, 2007)

2007 - Read the sunspots: Prepare now for dangerous global cooling (Financial Post, Canada, June 20, 2007)

2007 - Canadian Professor: Prepare for Global Cooling (NewsMax, June 21, 2007)

2007 - Is 'global cooling' the real threat? (The Washington Times, June 24, 2007)

2007 - It's Global Cooling, and It's Deadly (NewsMax, June 27, 2007)

2007 - Haryana, Punjab record cold temperatures (The Hindu, November 3, 2007)

2007 - Year of Global Cooling (The Washington Times, December 19, 2007)

2007 - Get Ready for Global Cooling (NewsMax, December 19, 2007)



Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution


http://m.climaterealists.com/index.php?id=2516


jay66
2 / 5 (4) Jul 05, 2009
Earth on the Brink of an Ice Age II







2008 - Cold Weather Kills 38 in Northern India (FOX News, January 2, 2008)



2008 - Indian cold wave toll kills 90 (The Earth Times, January 3, 2008)



2008 - A cold spell soon to replace global warming (RIA Novosti, January 3, 2008)



2008 - Cold Stretches Throughout East; Flurries Reported in Florida (FOX News, January 3, 2008)



2008 - Br-r-r! Where did global warming go? (The Boston Globe, January 6, 2008)



2008 - Snow, winds close highways, collapse roofs in Wash. (USA Today, January 8, 2008)



2008 - First snow for 100 years falls on Baghdad (AFP, January 11, 2008)



2008 - Saudi Arabia covered with snow in coldest winter for 20 years (RIA Novosti, January 11, 2008)



2008 - Russian scientist says Earth could soon face new Ice Age (RIA Novosti, January 22, 2008)



2008 - China battles "coldest winter in 100 years" (Reuters, February 4, 2008)



2008 - Canadian Scientists Fear Global Cooling (NewsBusters, February 8, 2008)



2008 - Solar Activity Diminishes; Researchers Predict Another Ice Age (DailyTech, February 9, 2008)



2008 - Record Cold for Northern Minn.: 40 Below (Associated Press, February 11, 2008)



2008 - Madison breaks its record for winter snowfall (USA Today, February 12, 2008)



2008 - China's freak cold weather killed 107 (Reuters, February 13, 2008)



2008 - Record cold kills cattle and rice in Vietnam (The Earth Times, February 13, 2008)



2008 - Freezing weather kills over 900 people in Afghanistan (RIA Novosti, February 16, 2008)



2008 - Cold weather kills 60,000 cattle in Vietnam (China Daily, February 18, 2008)



2008 - 4 sources say "globally cooler" in the past 12 months (Anthony Watts, Meteorologist, February 19, 2008)



2008 - ISRAEL: Cold weather kills 14 homeless people (Reuters. February 21, 2008)



2008 - Global Cooling: Amazing pictures of countries joining Britain in the big freeze (Daily Mail, UK, February 21, 2008)



2008 - Forget global warming: Welcome to the new Ice Age (National Post, Canada, February 25, 2008)



2008 - Temperature Monitors Report Widescale Global Cooling (DailyTech, February 26, 2008)



2008 - Global warming sceptics buoyed by record cold (The Daily Telegraph, UK, February 26, 2008)



2008 - Cold kills 1,300 in Afghanistan (RIA Novosti, February 27, 2008)



2008 - Record snow smothers New England (USA Today, February 28, 2008)



2008 - Coldest Winter in Memory (NewsMax, March 4, 2008)



2008 - Globe may be cooling on Global Warming (Scripps Howard News Service, March 5, 2008)



2008 - Layers of snow cause 5 roofs to collapse (Forbes, March 5, 2008)



2008 - Extreme cold kills 1,000 Tibetan gazelles (China Daily, March 7, 2008)



2008 - Coolest Winter Since 2001 For U.S., Globe, According To NOAA Data (Science Daily, March 15, 2008)



2008 - It was the coldest Easter for more than 40 years (Daily Mail, UK, March 25, 2008)



2008 - The Oceans Have Stopped Warming! (Canada Free Press, March 26, 2008)



2008 - Global temperatures 'to decrease' (BBC, April 4, 2008)



2008 - No Global Warming Since 1998 As Planet Cools Off (Prison Planet, April 4, 2008)



2008 - Global Warming? Northeast Skies Through a Snowy Season (The New York Sun, April 4, 2008)



2008 - Global warming? Scotland sees its best snow in a decade (The Times, UK, April 19, 2008)



2008 - The Antarctic deep sea gets colder (Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research, April 21, 2008)



2008 - Sorry to ruin the fun, but an ice age cometh (The Australian, April 23, 2008)



2008 - Global warming may 'stop', scientists predict (The Daily Telegraph, UK, April 30, 2008)



2008 - May Day storm brings snow to Colorado mountains (USA Today, May 1, 2008)



2008 - New Jason Satellite Indicates 23-Year Global Cooling (Hawaii Reporter, May 7, 2008)



2008 - U.S. Has 36th Coolest Spring on Record (NOAA, June 6, 2008)



2008 - Global Temperature Also Cooler in May (Anthony Watts, Meteorologist, June 6, 2008)



2008 - Global Warming Movement Turns Cool (James Spann, AMS Certified Meteorologist, June 22, 2008)



2008 - Warming on 11 year hiatus? How about cooling? (Anthony Watts, Meteorologist, June 23, 2008)



2008 - Astronomical Society of Australia publishes new paper warning of solar quieting and global cooling (Anthony Watts, Meteorologist, June 28, 2008)



2008 - Australian Researchers Warn of Global Cooling (DailyTech, July 1, 2008)



2008 - Charlotte temperature hits 123-year low (The Charlotte Observer, July 2, 2008)



2008 - UAH Global Temperatures, June 2008 still low (Anthony Watts, Meteorologist, July 2, 2008)



2008 - Four scientists: Global Warming Out, Global Cooling In (Anthony Watts, Meteorologist, July 12, 2008)



2008 - Shifting of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation assures global cooling for the next 3 decades (Don J. Easterbrook Ph.D. Professor of Environmental Geology, July 20, 2008)



2008 - Anchorage%u2019s record setting cold summer (Anchorage Daily News, July 24th, 2008)



2008 - More Global Cooling Ahead, Study Says (The Heartland Institute, August 1, 2008)



2008 - Could the Earth be cooling its heels? (Delta Farm Press, August 7, 2008)



2008 - Solar radio waves could signal global cooling (Financial Post, Canada, August 11, 2008)



2008 - Is there a cold future just lying in wait for us? (Belfast Telegraph, UK, August 13, 2008)



2008 - Decade has had fewest 90-degree days since 1930 (Chicago Tribune, August 13, 2008)



2008 - Dearth Of Sunspot Activity To Herald New Ice Age? (Prison Planet, August 14, 2008)



2008 - Hadley Climate Center Data shows global cooling in the last year (Anthony Watts, Meteorologist, August 15, 2008)



2008 - Mexican scientist warn Earth will enter 'Little Ice Age' for up to 80 Years Due to decrease in solar activity (Right Side News, August 19, 2008)



2008 - Global cooling gains momentum among scientists (Delta Farm Press, August 25, 2008)



2008 - Former head of CSIRO%u2019s division of space science says global cooling may be on the way (Canberra Times, Australia, August 26, 2008)



2008 - 'Snowfall' shocks Kenyan village (BBC, September 3, 2008)



2008 - Global Warming%u2019s Kaput; 2008 Coolest in 5 Years (NewsMax, September 8, 2008)



2008 - Old Farmers Almanac: Global cooling may be underway (USA Today, September 9, 2008)



2008 - NAS reports: 50 million year cooling trend (The Christian Science Monitor, September 25, 2008)



2008 - Global cooling sign: Solar winds at 50-year-low (Financial Post, Canada, September 28, 2008)



2008 - Ireland: Coldest September for 14 years (The Press Association, October 1, 2008)



2008 - Boise gets earliest snow on record (The Idaho Statesman, October 11, 2008)



2008 - Thirty years of warmer temperatures go poof (National Post, Canada, October 20, 2008)



2008 - Chill in the air: record low temps in 10 states (Anthony Watts, Meteorologist, October 26, 2008)



2008 - London has first October snow in over 70 years (The Guardian, UK, October 29, 2008)



2008 - Tibet's 'worst snowstorm ever', 7 killed (Xinhua, October 30, 2008)



2008 - South Florida cold spell breaks records (Sun Sentinel, October 30, 2008)



2008 - NOAA: U.S. breaks or ties 115 cold and sets 63 new snowfall records (Anthony Watts, Meteorologist, October 30, 2008)



2008 - Global Cooling is Here (Global Research, November 2, 2008)



2008 - Alarmists Still Heated Even As World Cools (Investors Business Daily, November 04, 2008)



2008 - Third building collapses under weight of snow (Ottawa Citizen, November 10, 2008)



2008 - Bitter cold shatters record (The Charlotte Observer, November 19, 2008)



2008 - New satellite indicates cycle of global cooling (The Spokesman-Review. November 20, 2008)



2008 - UK brought to standstill as five inches of snow falls (The Daily Telegraph, UK, November 25, 2008)



2008 - Early Snowfalls In Europe Hit 'Historic Levels' (Ski Report Europe, December 3, 2008)



2008 - Rare 50 year Arctic Blast Sets Sights On Southern California (Ontario Weather Service, December 8, 2008)



2008 - Oscillation Rules as the Pacific Cools (NASA, December 9, 2008)



2008 - Houston ties earliest snowfall record (Houston Chronicle, December 10, 2008)



2008 - Rare snow falls in south Louisiana, Miss., Alabama (Associated Press, December 11, 2008)



2008 - Worst ice storm in decade hits New England (Nashua Telegraph, December 12, 2008)



2008 - Cold weather sets records in several cities (Great Falls Tribune, December 14, 2008)



2008 - Denver sets record for cold temp today (The Denver Post, December 14, 2008)



2008 - Record low temperature set this morningin Seattle (The Seattle Times, December 15, 2008)



2008 - Northeast Siberia braces for extreme cold of -60C (RIA Novosti ,December 15, 2008)



2008 - Record cold chills out Colorado (The Gazette, December 15, 2008)



2008 - Record cold grips southern Alberta (The Lethbridge Herald, Canada, December 15, 2008)



2008 - Record snow hits Nanaimo in British Columbia, Canada (Nanaimo Daily News, Canada, December 15, 2008)



2008 - 2008 will be coolest year since 1997: WMO (Reuters, December 16, 2008)



2008 - St. Cloud, Minnesota sees record cold temp (Post-Bulletin, December 17, 2008)



2008 - The Cause of Cold Weather Is Global Warming? (FOX News, December 18, 2008)



2008 - Global cooling is here (Seattle Post-Intelligencer, December 18, 2008)



2008 - Record snow fall paralyzing Spokane (The Seattle Times, December 18, 2008)



2008 - Frigid Storm Closes California Freeways, Drops Snow in Malibu (FOX News, December 18, 2008)



2008 - Las Vegas gets heaviest snow fall in 30 years (The Daily Telegraph, UK, December 18, 2008)



2008 - Carports collapse under heavy snow (Las Vegas Sun, December 18, 2008)



2008 - Bihar cold wave death toll rises to 24 (The Bihar Times, India, December 19, 2008)



2008 - The Alps have best snow conditions 'in a generation' (The Daily Telegraph, UK, December 19, 2008)



2008 - Global cooling brings early white Christmas (Ventura County Star, December 20, 2008)



2008 - Albany Breaks 1887 Snow Record (North County Gazette, December 21, 2008)



2008 - The Spotless Sun Continues as Global Cooling Arrives (Joseph D%u2019Aleo, M.S. Meteorology, CCM, AMS Fellow, December 21, 2008)



2008 - Beijing's coldest December day in 57 years (Danwei, Hong Kong, December 22, 2008)



2008 - 40-Year Record Snow Buries Portland Area (The Oregonian, December 22, 2008)



2008 - Heavy snow causes a roof to collapse in Portland (The Oregonian, December 22, 2008)



2008 - Heavy Snow collapses manufacturing building roof - Seattle (MSNBC, December 22, 2008)



2008 - Record amount of snow on the ground in Calgary (Financial Post, Canada, December 22, 2008)



2008 - Snow causes roof collapse at Calgary Soccer Centre (Calgary Herald, Canada, December 22, 2008)



2008 - Cold weather kills 10 in Maryland since October (The Baltimore Examiner, December 23, 2008)



2008 - It's Cold Outside, But Global Warming Industry Still Hard At Work (Human Events. December 23, 2008)



2008 - An inconvenient truth: The Earth is cooling (The Baltimore Examiner, December 23, 2008)



2008 - Snow, again? Vegas sets another record this morning (Las Vegas Sun, December 23, 2008)



2008 - Deep freeze, heavy snows blast US; holiday travel snarled (AFP, December 23, 2008)



2008 - Record snow buries Beaver Creek, Colorado (Vail Daily, December 24, 2008)



2008 - Half of the USA is covered in snow (Anthony Watts, Meteorologist, December 25, 2008)



2008 - San Juan County, New Mexico experiences rare white Christmas (The Daily Times, December 25, 2008)



2008 - Canadians get first national white Christmas in nearly four decades (The Canadian Press, December 25, 2008)



2008 - For the first time in years, western part of Lake Superior freezes over (Pierce County Herald, Wisconsin, December 26, 2008)



2008 - Green Bay snowfall breaks 1887 record for December (Green Bay Press-Gazette, December 26, 2008)



2008 - Heavy snow causes roof collapse at Olympia high school (The Seattle Times, December 26, 2008)



2008 - Snowfall immobilizes rural communities in eastern, central Turkey (Todays Zaman, December 26, 2008)



2008 - Spokane sets snow record, tops 45 inches (Yakima Herald-Republic, December 26, 2008)



2008 - Two Flagstaff strip malls closed after roofs collapse due to heavy snow (The Arizona Daily Sun, December 26, 2008)



2008 - Cold creates record energy demand (Great Falls Tribune, December 27, 2008)



2008 - Thousands trapped in -15 degree snowstorm in Sikkim, India (The Times of India, December 27, 2008)



2008 - First White Christmas for Billings in Years (MSNBC, December 27, 2008)



2008 - White Christmas in Hawaii (Big Island Video News, December 27, 2008)



2008 - Olympia Horse-arena roofs collapse under snow (The Seattle Times, December 28, 2008)



2008 - Record-breaking cold descends on Switzerland (Swissinfo, Switzerland, December 28, 2008)



2008 - Ice age on its way (The Arizona Republic, December 28, 2008)



2008 - It's official: Snowfall record for single month tumbles (Wisconsin State Journal, December 29, 2008)



2008 - Snowfall breaks Fargo record for December (West Fargo Pioneer, December 30, 2008)



2008 - Record December snow at Grand Forks (Associated Press, December 30, 2008)



2008 - Spokane digs out from record-breaking snow (Associated Press, December 30, 2008)



2008 - Spokane roofs collapse under record snow (The News Tribune, December 31, 2008)



2008 - December's 48 inches of snow in Fox Valley Wisconsin buries previous record set in 1968 (Appleton Post-Crescent, December 31, 2008)



2009 - Record cold wind chills of -50 C recorded overnight in Saskatchewan (The Canadian Press, January 4, 2009)
2009 - Rochester sees snowiest winter in six years, record snow in December (Rochester Democrat & Chronicle, January 5, 2009)
2009 - Poor burn books to stay warm in chilly India, 55 dead (Reuters, January 5, 2009)
2009 - Forget warming, greenhouse gases may trigger ice age (The Times of India, January 5, 2009)
2009 - Cold streak sets new record, Saskatoon experiences 24 consecutive days of -25 C (The StarPhoenix, January 6, 2009)
2009 - Record cold weather payouts triggered as temperature hits -11C (The Times, UK, January 6, 2009)
2009 - Record-breaking cold -37 in Moose Jaw, Canada (The Moose Jaw Times Herald, Canada, January 6, 2009)
2009 - NCDC%u2019s own graphic shows decadal cooling trend (Anthony Watts, Meteorologist, January 6, 2009)
2009 - Global Warming is Really Global Cooling (Right Side News, January 6, 2009)
2009 - Spokane, Wash., residents cope with record snow (Associated Press, January 7, 2009)
2009 - 12 deaths blamed on snow, cold across Europe; travellers face delays (The Canadian Press, January 7, 2009)
2009 - Ice Age returns to south as the sea freezes over (Portsmouth News, UK, January 8, 2009)
2009 - Minn. sled race canceled because of heavy snow (USA Today, January 8, 2009)
2009 - Extreme Alaska cold 60 below grounds planes, disables cars (The Associated Press, January 8, 2009)
2009 - Record snow takes toll on Great Falls plowing budget, crews (Montana News Network, January 9, 2009)
2009 - Life At Negative 78 Degrees In Alaska (NPR, January 9, 2009)
2009 - Polar Sea Ice Changes are Having a Net Cooling Effect on the Climate (Anthony Watts, Meteorologist, January 10, 2009)
2009 - Slovenia with record low temperature -49 (Montenegrin News Agency, January 11, 2009)
2009 - Earth on the Brink of an Ice Age (Pravda, Russia, January 11, 2009)





Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution







jay66
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 06, 2009
In case you wanted to know these are all linked in the comments @ http://newsbuster...-ice-age



by PopularTech
jay66
2 / 5 (4) Jul 06, 2009
Shifting of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation from its warm mode to cool mode assures global cooling for the next three decades

http://wattsupwit...decades/
Ethelred
3 / 5 (4) Jul 06, 2009
And your intelligent point is what???


Something that is apparently far too based on reality for you to handle.

And if you didn't expect this to be a cool year you don't understand the Solar Cycle. Which again may be too much of reality for you to handle.

CO2 is pollution, if we put too much of it into the atmosphere. The main increase in temperatures from CO2 would be at the poles and there the ice is decreasing. Sure there is year to year variation but over time the ice has still decreased and all the obfuscation in the world by people that believe in non-existent ancient cultures is not going to change reality.

There was no Atlantis. There is NO evidence for it or Mu or any other fantasy land outside of Disneyland. Finding human detritus downstream of cities is not evidence of cities under the sea. It is evidence that shit flows downstream.

The glaciers are melting all around the world. Despite all that stuff you listed the glaciers are still melting. If it continues the water WILL rise. Eventually cities will be under the water and you Atlantis fans will finally have evidence for advanced cities covered by water. Only the won't be Mu or Atlantis. They will be every port city in the world.

Sure it will take time. How much time is still open to debate. But it is beginning to be clear that the oceans are likely to rise at least 3 feet in this century if we don't something soon.

Even oxygen can be a pollutant if there is too much of it. If the level goes up enough fires will start to become far more devastating. So it false to simply say

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution


As if we release enough it will cause staggering levels of damage.

I consider it weird that the three people on this thread that think there ancient advanced civilizations are the same people that claiming that Global Warming isn't real or at least that CO2 isn't involved even when the do admit that the world is hotter.

Of course both behaviors have something in common. An unwillingness to accept evidence they find inconvenient.

Ethelred
jay66
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 06, 2009
And of course you are the arbiter of all things right,wrong and acceptable so there is no use in showing you any opposing points of view.And as for your solar cycle how many would you like to talk about.You now agree the earth cooled but dismiss this as what just an inconvenient truth.All warming alarmists do is cherry pick the data they like and throw the rest out .That is why the author of this article only went back 800 yrs.Lets look at the last 1,000,000 yrs. and see what the climate has done in the past and how it correlates to much longer cycles that do repeat.As for your comment on ancient civilizations I never commented on my beliefs I only posted known facts to rebutt your stated opinion on(no cities around 10,000 yrs. ago and the incas not having a written language)This information is from mainstream science,dispute it if you can.You strike me as a person who would call someone an idiot just because they dont speak your language maybe that is why you attack people for not agreeing with you and come with all kinds of strange comments not related to any part of the discussion so figure out how to control your ego(yes EGO look it up you might need some personal time)and realize that you are on a site that should be for debate that is how adults solve problems by coming to a consensus.



CO2 is not pollution.This is a true statement I didn't say co2 can never be considered a pollutant so dont ass-ume you know what I was saying when I didnt write it.



And as far as the definition of advanced civilizations I believe most people mean nothing more than comparable to ours i.e. not a primitive tribe.

Since you got me started isnt it wierd how science continually comes with amazing new discoveries that forces them to re-write the text books after they had demonized opposing views as nonsense.City of Troy is a perfect example considered just a legend and myth until it was excavated (re-write).HMM I wonder why people still talk of the legend of Atlantis and why others can say for a fact it does not exist.Only someone heavily invested in scientific dogma would so adamantly claim to refute its existence of which I can say I dont know but that doesnt mean I am forbidden to bring it up in discussion or that the mere mention of it puts me on a list.And by the way ethelred YOU DONT KNOW EVERYTHING.
DeputyPlow
not rated yet Jul 06, 2009
bogus:



I just saw a television program a few weeks ago, about ancient civilizations, which showed how some Native tribe in the Americas had mapped the LAND MASS of antarctica to modern satellite age degree of accuracy several thousand years ago. The only way this could be possible is if the ice wasn't there at all when the map was drawn.



This was not on a crackpot television show, but was on either the History Channel or Nation Geographic, I forget which.


Antarctica is not a solid block of ice that covers the entire continent. It is the coldest and highest continent on the planet that recieves very little precipitation even snow. The snow just doesn't melt as quickly; however, it will blow in the wind. To say that a group of people cant tell where the mountains or coastlines are is rediculous! Clearly you have never seen pictures of antarctica. If you would like to check out coolantarctica.com and you will also see that there are mountains not covered in a solid snow blanket. Furthermore, this program is irrelavent to the article "Ancient civilation" most likely occured well before the 13th century. If it took place before the 13th century it could been even warmer. Additionally, this article is about the northern ice spread not the southern ice spread which is surely on a different curve.
superhuman
1 / 5 (2) Jul 06, 2009
Quantum C: How could a civilization in Bolivia ~15,000 years ago make a city out of monolithic dolomites weighing 800 metric tons.

Ethelred: There were no city building cultures ANYWHERE in the whole world that long ago.

The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. The oldest known city is 11000 years old and it's very unlikely that we were lucky enough to discover the first city ever built by man.

BTW Ethelred I am still waiting for your reply in the Twin Paradox thread. Does your silence mean you finally accepted your errors but are too ashamed to admit it?
http://www.physor...003.html

* * *

So again you are wrong when you claim Special Relativity does not cover acceleration.
Ethelred: No. That one I am right on. Handle and cover are different things.
frajo
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 06, 2009
The oldest known city is 11000 years old

That's interesting. Where are its remains? What's it called?
Catal Huyuk has, according to wikipedia, "only" 9500 years. And is a settlement, not a city.

superhuman
1 / 5 (2) Jul 06, 2009
The oldest known city is 11000 years old
That's interesting. Where are its remains? What's it called?
Catal Huyuk has, according to wikipedia, "only" 9500 years. And is a settlement, not a city.

Jericho
http://en.wikiped.../Jericho
Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 07, 2009
And of course you are the arbiter of all things right,wrong and acceptable so there is no use in showing you any opposing points of view.


Nonsense. It is simply that your fonddness for Atlantis is a clear indication that you are not good at critical thinking. And spamming the thread with a load on short term data about a cold year in a year that is expected to be cold is not going to convince me of anything significant. There might be something that could change my mind, perhaps even in that over loaded post. I am not going to go looking through all that on the off-chance that there might be one pearl. After all I have to keep your thinking on Atlantis in mind. It never existed. There is no evidence for an ancient civilization that can stand up to even a few minutes of critical research.

You now agree the earth cooled


Actually I did not. Only said it wouldn't surprise if 2008 was cooler. A load of individual spots on the globe would not convince me. Only an overall average would and that still is only one year, a year at the cold end of the Sunspot cycle.

but dismiss this as what just an inconvenient truth.


Bullshit. Don't put words in my mouth. I will call you on it every time.

All warming alarmists do is cherry pick the data they like and throw the rest out .


Sorry but that is you denialists that do that. I am going on the ice as it is what counts. Water level rising is all I am interested in. Look at my other posts and you will see this to be true.

That is why the author of this article only went back 800 yrs


I think it was because that is about as far as we have any historical records for Greenland. Before that there is a severe shortage of records. None of any kind. The Inuits tend not to keep records from that long ago.

Lets look at the last 1,000,000 yrs. and see what the climate has done


I don't care all that much. I am fully aware of the Ice Ages. I mostly care about the time since the Industrial Revolution and our putting larger and larger amounts of CO2 from fossil fuel into the air.

As for your comment on ancient civilizations I never commented on my beliefs I only posted known facts to rebutt your stated opinion on


No. You posted stuff from the Atlantis fans.

(no cities around 10,000 yrs. ago and the incas not having a written language


There are no 10,000 year old cities, though there were almost certainly some villages. You posted stuff from Atlantis fans. The Incas did not have a written language. They had a method of keeping track of numbers.

You posted one guy's attempts to show that the knots COULD have been used for more than numbers however the the knotwork we have available all seems to fit a base ten system and only numbers with the possibility of a few knots being used to keep track of what the numbers were related too.

This information is from mainstream science,dispute it if you can.


Atlantis fans are not mainstream. One scientist looking at knots does not a mainstream make.

Not a single Incan building has knotwork on it. Every single literate culture, that we know of, has writing on their buildings. Thus I repeat that the Incas did not have a written language.

http://en.wikiped...ki/Quipu

And the closest it comes to talking about written language is:

The August 12, 2005 edition of the journal Science includes a report titled "Khipu Accounting in Ancient Peru" by anthropologist Gary Urton and mathematician Carrie J. Brezine. Their work may represent the first identification of a quipu element for a non-numeric concept, a sequence of three figure-of-eight knots at the start of the quipu that seems to be a unique signifier. It could be a toponym for the city Puruchuco (near Lima), or the name of the quipu keeper who made it, or its subject matter, or even a time designator.


This is, at best, the barest beginnings of a written language. And knotwork is the worst way I have seen to record any kind of data. Its bad enough for numbers. I am certain that if they had contact with the Mayans they would have rapidly begun to use the Mayan writing.

The Greeks adapted Linear A from the Minoans. Unfortunately Linear B sucks for the Greek language and the Greeks eventually became illiterate again. When they again became literate hundreds of years later they had a completely different alphabet. Yet Linear B is vastly superior to knotwork for recording information.

It is not enough to suppose that they could have used knotwork for a written language. There has to be evidence that they did so. There is no such evidence.

Please, in the future, do not use one paragraph for a dozen different ideas. If nothing else it makes you look like you have a scattered mind and I don't think you want to look that way.

A few well chosen links have far more meaning than spamming the thread. I will not deal with that level of shotgunning.

You strike me as a person who would call someone an idiot just because they dont speak your language


Yes, go ahead and make up a straw man. It is so much easier to deal with an argument where you invent the opposition.

maybe that is why you attack people for not agreeing with you


I mostly attack the arguments and not the people. Sometimes I attack the technique. In your case I am doing both because you have done both rather poorly. Learn from this and become better at it. Screaming vituperations at a straw man is not going to help you get better at online discussion.

come with all kinds of strange comments not related to any part of the discussion
]

More straw man garbage.

so figure out how to control your ego


Did it a long time ago. I am sitting here in my underwear. How is that for humble. I admitted it. Can you?

realize that you are on a site that should be for debate that is how adults solve problems by coming to a consensus.


Actually this site is for debate but not to reach consensus. Consensus with people that have things wrong is not being true to yourself. This is not politics. Its a science site and consensus is not something to strive for here.

I do occasionally learn things here. For instance I learned that there was writing at the city near Titicaca. I also learned that some people are under the delusion that a 1,500 year old city is a 15,000 year old city. That isn't a surprise that people would be that far off since so many people that go looking for old cities are hoping to find signs of Atlantis. Then when the real scientists show up we find out what the real dating is.

CO2 is not pollution.This is a true statement I didn't say co2 can never be considered a pollutant so dont ass-ume you know what I was saying when I didnt write it.


It is a pollutant if it is driving Global Warming. Since it looks very much like it is driving Global Warming it is false to claim that is not a pollutant. I made no assumptions. I just looked at what you said.

And 'ass-ume' is infantile. So you might want to stop using that junior high wisdom. You can't get anywhere in science without making assumptions. If you want to argue with me the use adult arguments would be a good idea.

And as far as the definition of advanced civilizations I believe most people mean nothing more than comparable to ours i.e. not a primitive tribe.


We are far beyond a primitive tribe. The Atlantis fans clearly think we are behind or barely ahead of the technology of their imaginary civilization. However I am willing to call a city with actual writing that at least matches early Sumerian as advanced if it existed 5,000 years before the Sumerians as the Atlantis fans would have us believe. I don't know of any Atlantis fans that willing to propose a technology that simple for Atlantis. If you are willing to go that low you will be the first. First on this thread at the very least.

Since you got me started isnt it wierd how science continually comes with amazing new discoveries that forces them to re-write the text books after they had demonized opposing views as nonsense.


This is extremely rare outside of historical sciences. Even within historical sciences it tends to be fairly minor rewrites. The most extreme I can think of at the moment would be in India or perhaps with the Mayans.

In the 70s a number of archeologists had got it into their heads that the Mayans were peaceful and lived within the capacity of the land. Since we have begun to translate Mayan we have found that they were pretty bloodthirsty and they too burdened the land. This sort of cultural thing tends to change with the times. Part of it seems to me to be the need for new researchers to make a name for themselves. This is what the Inca knot research looks a bit like at present. However they may make large advances in the future. We will see but at present it looks like it mostly used for numbers and maybe a few designators for what the numbers were being used for.

The other case I can think of I was actually talking about on my way home today. There is a very old abandoned port city in India (now many miles inland) that had shrines in most of the houses. Well the earlier researchers best guess was that they were shrines. The shrines are now known to be just a tad more practical. They were toilets. The city has the earliest known indoor plumbing.

City of Troy is a perfect example considered just a legend and myth until it was excavated (re-write).


And he botched the research. Tore right through the levels that were probably the Troy of Homer. There is a difference between guessing in the 1800s and in the 21st Century. We still have no evidence for Atlantis but we sure do have a lot of people claiming that they have found some. So far not single bit of it can stand up to scrutiny.

HMM I wonder why people still talk of the legend of Atlantis


Because people like to believe. Go look up the source of the Atlantis legend. You will find that I nailed it.

No. Really. Go look it up. You clearly think there is some kind of legend. There isn't one.

Again.

There is ONE story about a story and Plato didn't even bother to finish the story. There is not one single other mention of Atlantis until the rediscovery of Plato's unfinished story. All the rest comes from the Sleeping Fraud and people that came after him. Nothing else.

Go on. If you are so sure there is an actual legend give a link to another Greek, Roman or Egyptian source. You won't find one. Plato is all there was.

.Only someone heavily invested in scientific dogma would so adamantly claim to refute its existence


Only everyone that has noticed that there is no evidence at all for it. Which clearly does not include you. Learning about Atlantis from Cayce fans is like learning about geography from Flat Earthers.

By the way, I knew two guys that were publishing a Flat Earth newsletter in the 70s. They were having a lot of fun making up bogus claims of proof. No they didn't actually believe the Earth was flat but the newsletter played it straight.

.And by the way ethelred YOU DONT KNOW EVERYTHING.


No. I don't. But that statement looks much like whining so you would be better off if you never do that sort of thing again.

I am not a beginner at internet discussions. I have written thousands of posts on Maximum PC Comport and Apolyton.com. I have honed my skills over nearly a decade. I really do learn stuff this way but most of my learning has come from searching the net to see when someone is right and for evidence to support my positions. To change my mind you will need actual evidence or at least be clever enough that I fail to notice the errors. Fortunately I am not the only person on the thread with critical thinking skills so if I fail to notice poor logic or bad evidence there is a chance that someone else will.

Ethelred
Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 07, 2009
The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.


True. But there has a been a lot of ALLEGED evidence and it has always been non-evidence.

The oldest known city is 11000 years old and it's very unlikely that we were lucky enough to discover the first city ever built by man.


Would you care to post a link to that alleged city. The oldest known city so far is supposed to be Jericho and the claim that it is 8,000 years old is disputed. It seems likely that it is at least 6,000 years old.

There are several cities claiming to be older than Jericho is alleged to be. Damascus for one. But the evidence is that Damascus is at most 6,000 years old. Which is still the oldest known capital city.

There is no evidence for a city with writing being 15,000 years old or even 11,000 years old.

Does your silence mean you finally accepted your errors but are too ashamed to admit it?


Sorry but there weren't any errors. Nothing to be ashamed of on my part. Perhaps for you though.

I simply decided that someone that is under the delusion that I must bow down before his SuperEgo isn't worth any more bother. I was right. Even if I was wrong there is no need to grovel as you demand.

And thank you for making to all concerned that you don't understand English. Please keep using that as a signature. It will make it clear to all observers just who is right.

I was thinking that if you pushed things I would use that as a signature after I finished with Qubitamer. It figures that you would choose the worst for you of the two. I told you couldn't manage it. Thank you for your support in this time of your desperate need.

You should have left well enough alone.

Ethelred
Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 07, 2009
From the link for Jericho:

Jericho is believed to be one of the oldest continuously-inhabited cities in the world, with evidence of settlement dating back to 9000 BC, providing important information about early human habitation in the Near East


How does that count as a city? And the Wiki is cracked when it makes the claim of continuously-inhabited. It has been abandoned for long periods of time. Even the Wiki gets that in other parts of the article.

The first permanent settlement was built near the Ein as-Sultan spring between 8000 and 7000 BC by an unknown people, and consisted of a number of walls, a religious shrine, and a 23-foot (7.0 m) tower with an internal staircase


So you got Jericho wrong on the date. It wasn't a city 11,000 years ago. Even by Wikipedia and those are the oldest claims I have ever seen for it. At a guess the date may have come from the popular mistake of changing thousands of year ago into thousands of years BC.

Most of the controversies in the Wiki discussion are about the time of Joshua. Someone is complaining about the bogus claim of continuous inhabitation. No one seemed to care that the earliest dates were 2,000 before the people that did the actual research claimed. Oh, there was clearly some Arab vs Israeli hate going on as well. Wikipedia just tends to get erratic when controversy is involved.

http://www.mnsu.e...cho.html

Perhaps the best known and most accurate information from the Jericho site comes form yet another excavation under Kathleen Kenyan from 1952-1958. Her techniques were far superior to Garstang's and involved rigorous examination of the soil and very careful recording of its stratification. Kenyan was able to obtain a cross section of the city through its entire history by digging a narrow deep trench while maintaining clean and squared off edges. When presented with an area that would require wider areas to be excavated- the floor plan of a house for example- she carefully dug in measured squares while leaving an untouched strip between each section to allow the stratification to remain visible. Kenyan's main objective during her excavations at Jericho was to trace the history of the site back to it's earliest settlement. While trenching downward through the site she uncovered the first walled city along with a number of houses and courtyards that had been constructed over 10,000 years ago, during the Neolithic.


And that is the date I thought I saw before. 10,000 year ago or 8,000 BC.

http://archaeolog...icho.htm

# Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (8,500-7300 BC), roofed, oval semisubterraean dwellings in a village, engaging in long distance trade and growing domesticated crops, construction of the first tower (4 meters tall), and a defensive perimeter wall


Of course it is possible that it is older than that. But there is at present no reason to think so. But all the recent efforts have been trying to patch the Joshua story.

Ethelred
Velanarris
3 / 5 (2) Jul 07, 2009
So from nothing a city sprang forth complete with agricultural infrastructure that is of sufficient integretry as to survive 10,000 years in a recognizable form.

Pretty complex for stone age bedouins without a written language.

The controvesry in dating old settlements is the same controvesry involved in dating modern day cities. Without a written record of existence, age cannot be approximated as cities and even minor settlements build upon their existing foundations. For a society or culture to make a leap in complexity of such great measure is unheard of.

Modern archaeology accepts that man went from roaming nomads to established cities with permanent infrastructure at a rate that defies belief. Is it possible, of course, but observation leads me to place this as less probable than "we're missing something".

And for all the Atlantis fans out there, Atlantis was the Minoan civilization, the island itself, Santorini. The landmarks match up, the time matches up, the cultures match up. Atlantis was incredibly advanced for it's time, but there were no crystal power generators, alien influences, or other such foolishness.
superhuman
1 / 5 (2) Jul 07, 2009
Jericho, is just an example that settlements which might have been primitive cities - it all depends on your definition of a city and interpretation of the scarce evidence - have already been settled 11000 years ago.

My point is the fact there is no evidence of older cities certainly does not rule out their existence. We know far to little to make definite statements of this kind.

Sorry but there weren't any errors. Nothing to be ashamed of on my part. Perhaps for you though.

Haha, still in denial I see, I'am afraid your posts are filled with errors and nonsense, who knows maybe after a little break you will now be able to notice and correct them:
http://www.physor...003.html

I bring it up because I am curious why after a rabid defense of patently absurd claims you suddenly vanished without a trace. Is it because I linked a paper calculating time dilation due to acceleration in SR when you repeatedly claimed it is impossible? Or is it just a coincidence?
Please keep using that as a signature.

If you insist, though I have to warn you I won't bother adding it to every post, way to much hassle, but I will post it from time to time to cheer you up a bit :)

BTW you haven't answered which signature do you prefer:
No, to compare their clocks you have to choose a reference frame, in the frame of each twin the other twin's clock will tick slower.

Ethelred: That is not A frame of reference. It's two.

So again you are wrong when you claim Special Relativity does not cover acceleration.

Ethelred: No. That one I am right on. Handle and cover are different things.
Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 07, 2009
So from nothing a city sprang forth complete with agricultural infrastructure that is of sufficient integretry as to survive 10,000 years in a recognizable form.


What the heck city are you talking about?

Pretty complex for stone age bedouins without a written language.


I suppose you meant Jericho because you mention Bedouins. Again what are you talking about?

It was a small city. Not actually Bedouin. Nomad doesn't have to mean Bedouin. Camels weren't domesticated until later. The city was uninhabited for long periods of time. In other words the early city wasn't at all related to the later cities in the same spot. Writing wasn't developed till long after the early city.

The first city was inhabited for a nearly 1,000 years which is plenty of time to build things slowly.

The controvesry in dating old settlements is the same controvesry involved in dating modern day cities.


Its isn't all that hard if you can get some wood. The main controversy with Jericho is the dating for the Joshua as the the time for the Biblical event seems to coincide with a period that Jericho was uninhabited. There is plenty of room for error there.

For a society or culture to make a leap in complexity of such great measure is unheard of.


Would you care to tell us what leap you are talking about? Keeping in mind that we are talking about a long time. People tend to forget that a few hundred years is a very long time even when talking about things that happened thousands of years ago. Building walls just isn't that hard.


Modern archaeology accepts that man went from roaming nomads to established cities with permanent infrastructure at a rate that defies belief.


No it doesn't defy belief. To me the question is why it took so long. The answer is at least partly a lack of writing at the beginning and later a low level of literacy.

And for all the Atlantis fans out there, Atlantis was the Minoan civilization, the island itself, Santorini.


They don't agree and I think that is speculation myself. I am not saying that it might not be the source for Plato but I don't see it as needed since he is the only source for Atlantis.

The landmarks match up, the time matches up, the cultures match up


The time was around 1500 BC. That doesn't match Plato or the dates of the Atlantis fans besides Plato. Now the Minoans were literate. We just can't read Linear A. Not enough of it and it is probably in a dead language.

Atlantis was incredibly advanced for it's time, but there were no crystal power generators, alien influences, or other such foolishness.


I wouldn't call it incredible. More advanced than the Acheans but they may have managed to conquer Crete shortly before Thera blew its top.

I had trouble with your post. It isn't clear what city you were talking about and you seem to think Thera went off a long time before it did since you mentioned in the same post as what seems to be Jericho. I did my best in trying figure out what you intended.

Perhaps if you clarify the times you think are involved for Jericho and Crete. And what you think is so hard about building a small city over hundreds of years.

We are talking small. As in small for a town by modern standards.

Ethelred
Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 07, 2009
Jericho, is just an example that settlements which might have been primitive cities


Yes. Its not exactly what the Atlantis fans here have been talking about is it? No writing. Its inland so there is no sign of being connected to seaports. The technology is Neolithic.

My point is the fact there is no evidence of older cities certainly does not rule out their existence.


My point is that there is no evidence of cities existing earlier. In particular advanced cities with actual writing. It is unlikely that there are cities much older anywhere on Earth since the Mideast seems to have been the first place to have cities at all. Keep in mind that this started with a claim that city in the Andes was 15,000 years old when it was a tenth that age.

---------------------------------------------

Off topic crap from SuperEgo

Haha, still in denial I see,


Yes you are.

I'am afraid your posts are filled with errors and nonsense, who knows maybe after a little break you will now be able to notice and correct them:


Nothing to correct except you.

I bring it up because I am curious why after a rabid defense of patently absurd claims you suddenly vanished without a trace.


Neither absurd nor rabid. Reasoned and correct.

Is it because I linked a paper calculating time dilation due to acceleration in SR when you repeatedly claimed it is impossible? Or is it just a coincidence?


Since you didn't do what you claim and I didn't say it was impossible to do the calculations I wouldn't have quit over it. I got bored with you making the same mistakes and the constant distortions. The time dilation was due to speed even in that article. The velocity changed to due to acceleration but it is the velocity that is involved in the time dilation. I can't help it if you refuse to see this due to your overweening ego. You sure do hold a grudge against people that can out reason you. This is now three threads you have gone after me demanding that I bow down before you. It isn't going to happen.

Now if you should ever manage to get something right I will admit it. For instance I almost completely agree with you that Jericho could have been a primitive city. The key difference is 'might have'. It WAS a primitive city. Walls and all that sort of stuff with the tower implying some sort of hierarchy or at least a security watch.

So once again you are proven wrong Ethelred, I'am dying to see what new twist will you come up with to get around this one.


No twist just the truth. In SR it is the velocity that is involved in time-dilation. The acceleration simply changes the velocity.

I am not dying to see how dense you will continue to be. I am sure you will continue to be pigheaded and most likely continue to distort things and show your inability to deal with the subtleties of English.

If you insist, though I have to warn you I won't bother adding it to every post, way to much hassle, but I will post it from time to time to cheer you up a bit :)


Thank you. Since you can't figure out how to do it easily I will help you.

Paste them into a text file. Use the text file to write your posts. Its easy. Just like its easier to use an inertial reference rather than an accelerating reference. Either way the velocity is the basis of the time dilation.

BTW you haven't answered which signature do you prefer:


Please. Use them both. They will confirm your difficulties with English and simple arithmetic. The difficulty you have in using a signature implies a lack of facility with computers to top it off.

Ethelred
superhuman
1 / 5 (2) Jul 08, 2009
No twist just the truth. In SR it is the velocity that is involved in time-dilation. The acceleration simply changes the
velocity.

Really? I am afraid you are wrong again, here, try to explain this simple diagram without invoking time dilation due to change in velocity - acceleration:
http://en.wikiped...gram.png
Even in the limit of instantaneous acceleration (meaning time spent cruising at various intervening speeds is zero) there is still time dilation in SR as is obvious from the diagram. This is also mentioned in the description on the Twin Paradox wiki page:
"In a sense, during the U-turn the plane of simultaneity jumps from blue to red and very quickly sweeps over a large segment of the world line of the resting twin. The traveling twin reckons that there has been a jump discontinuity in the age of the resting twin."
So Ethelred, why is this discontinuity there if not due to a change in velocity?
http://en.wikiped...lativity

* * *

No, to compare their clocks you have to choose a reference frame, in the frame of each twin the other twin's clock will tick slower.

Ethelred: That is not A frame of reference. It's two.

So again you are wrong when you claim Special Relativity does not cover acceleration.

Ethelred: No. That one I am right on. Handle and cover are different things.
Velanarris
1 / 5 (1) Jul 08, 2009
A delta in velocity is acceleration.

SR covers both. Just do out the equations for velocity and then substitute the algebra for recursively determining velocity from acceleration, your result will be the same.

I don't understand how you guys got into this argument, it's pretty basic.
Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 08, 2009
Really? I am afraid you are wrong again,


The time dilation comes from the velocity.

Even in the limit of instantaneous acceleration (meaning time spent cruising at various intervening speeds is zero) there is still time dilation in SR as is obvious from the diagram.


Its obvious from the equations. No diagram is needed. In the equations the velocity is the source of the time dilation.

This is also mentioned in the description on the Twin Paradox wiki page:
]

Which isn't a paradox. The velocity is still the cause of the time dilation in the equations.

So Ethelred, why is this discontinuity there if not due to a change in velocity?


So SuperEgo, when did I ever claim otherwise? Not once. So quit lying about it. Its much like your lie about not engaging in personal attacks when you called me a load of things.

In the equations the velocity is the source of the time dilation.

And thank you for your support. I appreciate the way you have deluded yourself into thinking that a handle and a cover are the same thing.

How do you manage to open cabinets when you think they are the same thing?

Do you stun them into submission by unleashing your ego on them?

And those cabinet handles must keep you so very warm at night.

Ethelred
Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 08, 2009
A delta in velocity is acceleration.


Of course it is. But the velocity is where the time dilation comes from in SR.

don't understand how you guys got into this argument, it's pretty basic.


I don't think you really want to know but I will inflict it on you anyway.

It has nothing to do with the time dilation. He has been mad at me since he lost his temper in a discussion about Local Realism.

http://www.physor...024.html

He mixed up his discussion with me and Noumenan and then he freaked out. Demanding that I admit he was right in a discussion that can only be a matter of opinion.

Ahh, this might be the thing that sent him over the edge of the precipice he was raging on:

SuperEgo:
Ha! No I don't need to start thinking,


Me:
Gosh that is a foolish statement. It is wrong in so many ways. NEVER say anything that is only useful for your opponent. I shouldn't have to give a primer in online flamewars here. Nevertheless have a link to my starter primer on another site:


After that he pretty much went from enraged to stark raving bonkers.

He mixed up his discussion with me and smiffy in the latest fiasco and again freaked out.

Its purely about his ego. He has the desire to have me grovel at his feet. He has never learned what I told him in that first discussion.

Do not flame while angry.

Or this either:

I cannot lose an internet discussion as long as I don't lose my temper. At the very least I will learn something, best I and others will learn something.

That goes for everyone. The only way to lose a discussion like this is to lose your temper. SuperEgo has lost it three times with me and has yet to figure out that chasing me is only making things worse.

Ethelred
Velanarris
1 / 5 (1) Jul 08, 2009
[Q]Of course it is. But the velocity is where the time dilation comes from in SR. [/Q]

Right but if acceleration is just a delta in velocity, then acceleration can supplant velocity in the formulae to determine time dilation.

So to get down to it, he's right.

As for the flame war back and forth, SH and I have gotten into it before. You both need to just take a step back and you'll see merit in the other's conversation.
Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 09, 2009
Oh Rick69:

You gave me a lot of ones and had not the guts to post one word yourself.

Tit for tat this time and after this I will think about going geometric if you continue this rude behavior. Ether post WHY you don't like what I write or butt out.

Sure have to post this sort of comment more than should be needed. A lot of rude people around here. I can live with the ones IF you say why. Otherwise its just intellectual cowardice.

Now to count the ones and return the favor.

Ethelred
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Jul 09, 2009
[Q]Of course it is. But the velocity is where the time dilation comes from in SR. [/Q]

Right but if acceleration is just a delta in velocity, then acceleration can supplant velocity in the formulae to determine time dilation.

So to get down to it, he's right.


You have to use a lower case q for the quotes. Silly but there it is. It would be easier if the edit button didn't make a mess of the formatting. An actual preview would be a real improvement for the discusions.

When I get right down to it I see that the whole concept of time dilation came from velocity or rather speed. Acceleration is a vector. Speed is scalar. It wasn't till Einstein came up with GR that acceleration itself was determined to cause time dilation.

And its that difference where the argument started at least on my part. GR vs SR. In GR there is time dilation due to acceleration whether from thrust or gravity. In SR it came exclusively from velocity.

Ethelred
superhuman
3 / 5 (2) Jul 11, 2009
S: So Ethelred, why is this discontinuity there if not due to a change in velocity?

Ethelred: So SuperEgo, when did I ever claim otherwise?

In the Twin Paradox thread, here is a quote from you, verbatim (you do realize a change in velocity is called acceleration I hope):
E:Basically, the idea of acceleration being involved in the original Twin Paradox is something they [authors of the Twin Paradox article] made up.

And you have been clinging to that absurd statement ever since despite or perhaps because of my attempts to correct your error.

E: Its obvious from the equations. No diagram is needed. In the equations the velocity is the source of the time dilation.

I see, the diagram which proves you wrong is not needed...

S: This is also mentioned in the description on the Twin Paradox wiki page:

E: Which isn't a paradox. The velocity is still the cause of the time dilation in the equations.

It's a called a paradox precisely because time dilation due to velocity alone cannot explain the results as the situation is completely symmetrical with respect to velocity and time dilation caused by it. Only acceleration differentiates those two cases, one twin undergoes acceleration during U-turn and the other one doesn't, this causes the traveling twin to have two different inertial reference frames associated with him one before the U-turn and one after. During the U-turn there is time dilation due to acceleration which is the source of the difference in twins age when they meet again. Again this is all very well covered in the wiki page, but you of course know better:
"Each twin sees the other twin as traveling; so each should see the other aging more slowly. How can an absolute effect (one twin really does age less) result from a relative motion? Hence it is called a "paradox". In fact, there is no contradiction and the thought experiment can be explained within the standard framework of special relativity. The effect has been verified experimentally using precise measurements of clocks flown in airplanes.
Starting with Paul Langevin in 1911, there have been numerous explanations of this paradox, all based upon there being no contradiction because there is no symmetry %u2014 only one twin has undergone acceleration and deceleration, thus differentiating the two cases."
http://en.wikiped..._paradox

So Ethelred the wise, I invite you to explain the paradox without invoking acceleration at all since as you yourself stated in your infinite wisdom: "the idea of acceleration being involved in the original Twin Paradox is something [the authors of the Twin Paradox article] made up." How can one twin be older if the situation is completely symmetrical with respect to velocity and time dilation caused by velocity and if as you (wrongly) claim only velocity causes time dilation in Special Relativity?

Its much like your lie about not engaging in personal attacks when you called me a load of things.

Oh, when someone lies I call them a lier but I don't consider it a personal attack, I know this interpretation leaves you vulnerable but I can only advise you to stop lying. I took time to document some of your lies in the Twin Paradox comments and I invite anyone interested to have a look (most are in my 4th comment from the end):
http://www.physor...003.html

* * *
No, to compare their clocks you have to choose a reference frame, in the frame of each twin the other twin's clock will tick slower.

Ethelred: That is not A frame of reference. It's two.

So again you are wrong when you claim Special Relativity does not cover acceleration.

Ethelred: No. That one I am right on. Handle and cover are different things.
superhuman
1 / 5 (1) Jul 11, 2009
Ethelred: Oh Rick69:
You gave me a lot of ones and had not the guts to post one word yourself.

I constantly see you crying about others negatively rating your comments and this gives me an idea.
Since you claim it all escalated not because of your constant attempts to avoid admitting your errors but because as you empathically put it I have a "desire to have you grovel at my feet" let's make a little educational experiment to see who cares more about his ego.

I will give 1's to all your comments and I invite you to do the same with mine, although I expect you will try to show you are better then that :) I will keep voting until you admit that you were in fact wrong when you repeatedly claimed that Special Relativity does not cover acceleration. This is the most obvious error you've made and a single Google query which I even kindly advised should have settled this once and for all.
http://www.google...leration Special Relativity
Yet for some strange reason you've decided to keep arguing about it, probably in hope that I will give up thinking it a waste of time. But this is precisely why I should not give up as it will lead you to think this is a valid and acceptable tactic in the discussions here.

Here let me quote our entertaining exchange one more time (from Twin Paradox thread):
Ethelred1: Acceleration and velocity are covered by General and Special Relativity, respectively.

S: Both [GR and SR] cover acceleration and velocity, SR does not cover gravitation.

Ethelred2: Therefor it does not cover acceleration. According to GR acceleration and gravity are equivalent and cannot be distinguished from each other by any test within the frame. Well unless I have totally misunderstood the concept.

S: You have totally misunderstood the concept. SR covers acceleration. If you don't believe me just google it, there's plenty of info on the subject, here is a quote from physics FAQ for example, it even mentions Twin Paradox as the usual context in which this misconception surfaces!
"It is a common misconception that Special Relativity cannot handle accelerating objects or accelerating reference frames. It is claimed that general relativity is required because special relativity only applies to inertial frames. This is not true. (...)
This error often comes up in the context of the twin paradox when people claim that it can only be resolved in general relativity because of acceleration. This is not the case."
Source: http://math.ucr.e...ion.html

Fun part starts here:
S: "It is a common misconception that Special Relativity cannot handle accelerating..."

Ethelred3: Didn't say it couldn't. I said it doesn't DEAL with acceleration. GR does that.
S: You have totally misunderstood the concept. SR covers acceleration.

Ethelred3: No. I haven't. SR can HANDLE acceleration by using more difficult equations...

As everyone can see there is one lie and one error in there - first Ethelred used the word "cover" not "deal" and second the equations of SR are incomparably simpler then equations of GR where one has to calculate local curvature of spacetime in each point, this is why there are hardly any exact solutions in GR at all.

So Ethelred, to get back to our little experiment I want you to set the record straight and admit that you were wrong when you claimed that "SR does not cover acceleration." (statements marked Ethelred1 and Ethelred2 above). Surly, admission of an obvious error is not too much to ask for, right? In the act of good I will even forget all your other transgressions if you comply with this kind request :)

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.