It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is it time to make the needed corrections about - ERR-atics?

page: 10
8
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 5 2019 @ 10:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2
undeniably accurate and true. But they accumulate SLOWLY - over a period of time. Hence they have no power to move a boulder the size of a house.


Completely false. What do you mean they have no power to move a boulder??? Of course they do. They are tens of millions of times larger than a house and we have already been over how avalanches cause boulders to fall onto glaciers and how glaciers can move slowly over time and break off when it thaws out and float hundreds of miles away with boulders on top of them. You haven't refuted any of that, just denied because there isn't a youtube video from the end of any glacial periods.


Unless you can overcome the forces exerted / present on the boulder, there's no way it will move. Simple Newtonian physics.


Well, since you have posted absolutely zero relevant data on any rock, there is no way to even come up with the relevant equation. Give me an example.


In addition, since glaciers form ever so slowly, they tend to COVER and GO AROUND whatever in its path. Thus enveloping it. The added weight of ice on TOP of a boulder will further push the object downward, hence doubling or even tripling the forces exerted upon it - in a downward direction.


Basic physics has eluded you.



"...so your assumption about breaking the ice is 100% unfounded. Some glaciers are bigger than The USA and during the last glacial period they were even larger than that."
- not true. The discussion was (a glacier) floating on water (apparently moving water).


What do you mean that is NOT true?? Look up the last glacial maximum on google and it will show you how far the glaciers extended. Yes, ice floats on water because it is less dense. If you have a large glacier chunk that broke off the main glacier, it could travel far. You can test this yourself. Fill up the bathtub and put ice chunks in it. Now put tiny pebbles on those ice chunks and watch how little effect it has. You'll notice it will take a while before they melt and the pebbles fall to the ground.


Understanding the mechanics of how ice forms and exposures to fluctuating temperatures, environments, the ice will over time break apart. Hence, whatever is on the surface of that glacier - a boulder the size of a house - will eventually break the ice apart.


Of course it will eventually break apart. But it can travel large distances first, especially when the ice chunk is exponentially bigger than the boulder.


This is the reason why we don't see icebergs floating towards warmer areas. This is a fact.


NO IT'S NOT! Icebergs have been seen as far south as BERMUDA. Your "facts" are hilarious. You literally just make it up as you go along. It depends on the size of the iceberg. Obviously large glacier chunks from the end of the glacial period were MUCH MUCH bigger than modern day icebergs.


In addition, for a boulder, the size of a house LANDING on top of a glacier implies that the boulder came from a higher elevation. If the impact doesn't break the ice, then other forces will.


Wrong again. Glaciers can be huge. Again, scale it down and it's like dropping a pebble on an ice cube. You have no concept of scale.


Like I said, no evidence can help you if the obvious is you refuse to see obvious - F=ma.


Why don't you do that formula with a real world example instead of grasping at straws. Where is your data??? I'd be happy to crunch the numbers for you but everything you say is vague. Give me the details. Give me the data. If you don't have any you are just going blind... but we all know that's how it works with dishonest creationists.


edit on 2 5 19 by Barcs because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 6 2019 @ 01:05 PM
link   
I get quite amused at the lack of basic science on this website at times. Let's take the example of glaciers on mountains. What do they have in common? They are mountains which means that they are at high altitudes. Glaciers therefore 'flow' downhill. Let's take a moment to think about that. Large glaciers contains thousands, if not millions of tonnes of ice. All moving, very slowly, downhill. Now, anyone who doesn't think that kind of force can't move a boulder, no matter what the size, hasn't been paying attention to basic physics.
Then let's take a look at ice sheets. These are a lot less common than they used to be, but we can see some of the remnants in Antarctica. They tend to be several miles high at the very least, obeying their own flows and currents, heading to the sea. And... these can't move boulders?
Yeah, right.



posted on Feb, 6 2019 @ 03:00 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

You are correct. It would also explain why megalithic rocks are strewn around like flotsam too. If you change the theory you can change the interpretation of history and in our history is something that has been kept away from us.



posted on Feb, 6 2019 @ 03:08 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

Here is a picutre for you. It is from a quarry.
Cave di Cusa (meaning “Quarry of Accusation” in Italian) or Rocche di Cusa in Sicily.

Regardless of the conventional history there is evidence to suggest it is megalithic.



What force has caused rocks from there to be strewn around like erratics.



I should be easy to do with the history provided. Yet it is not.



posted on Feb, 16 2019 @ 02:38 AM
link   
a reply to: purplemer

Sorry to say, but the godless heathen aliens did that one.



posted on Feb, 18 2019 @ 08:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Toothache

Neighbour one can not he a heathen, and have no gods. You need a wider vocabulary.



posted on Feb, 18 2019 @ 09:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

heathen = pagan ?

Or, Bahai = heathen? (e.g.)



posted on Feb, 19 2019 @ 01:20 PM
link   
a reply to: purplemer

Is the rock in your 2nd picture from the same site as the first? If so, how far away is it from the original location? Is there relevant research on that 2nd rock determining such?

Thanks.
edit on 2 19 19 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2019 @ 02:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

The modern usage of heathen is a Germanic Pagan. Pagans have Gods, jsut not the Abrahamic one.

Etymologically its of course someone who lives on a heath. But also in Old English ( hæðen) someone who does not follow the Abrahamic Deity. Just like a Pagan is a country dweller
But as we are speaking modern English here, it is Northern European Pagans, which is almost totally Germanic (northern aka Scandinavian and southern Teutonic).

Its been used to mean Godless in the past, but that would be a bad usage of it.



posted on Feb, 19 2019 @ 04:42 PM
link   
So we have finally established that there has never been a "global flood" that literally swallowed the entire planet as divine punishment?



posted on Feb, 19 2019 @ 04:57 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

You had to go and do that did'nt you?


Yeah we have.



posted on Feb, 19 2019 @ 05:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: TzarChasm

You had to go and do that did'nt you?


Yeah we have.


that was the entire point of this little game, make it look like there was a huge global flood and no other explanation and then use it to prop up some religious message in spite of ALLLLLL the science showing otherwise.



posted on Feb, 19 2019 @ 06:34 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

Yeah I got it. They always say "every religion has a myth of a flood" line too. Which is untrue, but hey they don't do their research. SO its not just science showing otherwise, I'd point to the example of Indo-European cosmology not showing it, and nor other linguistic groups. Its mostly an Abrahmic thing, possibly Semitic. Meaning there was probably a flood that got exaggerated.



posted on Feb, 19 2019 @ 07:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Toothache

Neighbour one can not he a heathen, and have no gods. You need a wider vocabulary.




Definition of heathen

(Entry 1 of 2)
1 : of or relating to people or nations that do not acknowledge the God of the Bible : of or relating to heathens (see heathen entry 2 sense 1), their religions, or their customs : pagan heathen rituals
2 : strange, uncivilized

Definition of heathen (Entry 2 of 2)
1 : an unconverted member of a people or nation who does not acknowledge the God of the Bible
2 : an uncivilized or irreligious person



posted on Feb, 20 2019 @ 10:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Toothache

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Toothache

Neighbour one can not he a heathen, and have no gods. You need a wider vocabulary.




Definition of heathen

(Entry 1 of 2)
1 : of or relating to people or nations that do not acknowledge the God of the Bible : of or relating to heathens (see heathen entry 2 sense 1), their religions, or their customs : pagan heathen rituals
2 : strange, uncivilized

Definition of heathen (Entry 2 of 2)
1 : an unconverted member of a people or nation who does not acknowledge the God of the Bible
2 : an uncivilized or irreligious person



Neither of those definitions invalidate Noinden’s point. Just because you don’t believe in his gods doesn’t mean he has no gods. You simply find fault with his non Christian world view and his knowledge of science. It’s a shame, open minds can learn a lot from other belief systems whether it moves with their personal religious thoughts or not. Being that closed minded does you a great disservice.



posted on Feb, 20 2019 @ 01:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
...Its mostly an Abrahmic thing, possibly Semitic. Meaning there was probably a flood that got exaggerated.


Possibly the Black Sea Deluge that occurred about 7600 years ago.

It wouldn't surprise me if the peoples who lived through that would have created and passed down tales of how (from their point of view) the world was flooded.


edit on 2019/2/20 by Box of Rain because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2019 @ 04:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Toothache

Yeah you stick to a simple online dictionary. However etymology is more telling neighbour.

www.etymonline.com...



posted on Feb, 20 2019 @ 11:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar
Neither of those definitions invalidate Noinden’s point. Just because you don’t believe in his gods doesn’t mean he has no gods. You simply find fault with his non Christian world view and his knowledge of science. It’s a shame, open minds can learn a lot from other belief systems whether it moves with their personal religious thoughts or not. Being that closed minded does you a great disservice.


Peter, I was not saying anything about his beliefs. I was the one who used the term originally and was making a joke about the "megalithic" structure in the post by Purplemer.

I said: "Sorry to say, but the godless heathen aliens did that one."

He responded with: "Neighbor one can not be a heathen, and have no gods. You need a wider vocabulary. "

One can indeed be godless and heathen. That is why I quoted the definition. I was not trying to refute what he believed, just explaining what I meant by the word when I used it. That is fair, right? I used the word to mean "an uncivilized or irreligious person." I was going to use "evil" but I thought heathen sounded cooler.




edit on 20-2-2019 by Toothache because: (no reason given)







 
8
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join