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.

 

Do You Think It's Possible,The Universe Is Only 6000 Years Old

page: 12
17
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 10 2019 @ 04:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

I stand corrected.




posted on Apr, 10 2019 @ 07:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Itisnowagain

blind people can confirm scientific facts without "observation"

it's not observation with eyes, but just measurement , recording its state



posted on Apr, 10 2019 @ 07:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye

originally posted by: oldcarpy
Thinking about the question in the title of this thread, as the furthest star observable on Earth is I think over 13 Billion light years away and the light would have taken over 13 billion years to get here I guess the answer is "no".
I agree, no.

But our concept, our reality, may be. I'm certain our reality is not older than 10,000 years.


Well, I can be certain that rainbows are unicorn farts.

However, with all of the counter evidence that tells us that rainbows are really an optical effect, and with no evidence backing up my claim of Prismatic Unicorn Flatulence, my "certainty" on the matter would be false and in error.



posted on Apr, 10 2019 @ 08:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: All Seeing Eye

You forget that meteors made of sedimentary rock (which is fairly soft would not survive a trip through our atmosphere - they would burn up). Or, at very least, if they did make it in one piece they would be showing signs of extreme heating. Yours do not so, space rocks no. They are just rocks.

This is what meteorites look like:

Geology.com: Classification of Meteorites


Again, good point. Here are the blackend rocks from the spring below the hill the "Objects" were found. And again odd shaped "Rocks" suspended in Red Clay.







This is the side of the hill the odd shaped "Rocks" were removed from, with some still embedded. Note the minimal amount of top soil above.










posted on Apr, 10 2019 @ 08:49 AM
link   
a reply to: All Seeing Eye

those look like rocks which have been used in a fire , likely they were used at that exact location thousands of years ago and have been burned and left in a fire pit !

as for meteors having sedimentary rock , it is entirely possible that a volcano on mars could erupt and fire a volcanic plug with enough force it could leave mars and then land on earth
that meteor would be made of sedimentary rock layers !



posted on Apr, 10 2019 @ 08:51 AM
link   
a reply to: All Seeing Eye

My guess would be mica but like I say I am no expert. I'm sure posters more knowledgeable about such things could help?



posted on Apr, 10 2019 @ 09:06 AM
link   
a reply to: All Seeing Eye

i is only an hobbyist - so am crap at id from pics offered with no context

but google " black calcite " and click images .

you cite " below a spring " is the predominant geology of the area limestone ?

calcite is common - and the colour comes from contamination by metalic salts



posted on Apr, 10 2019 @ 09:51 AM
link   
A quick Google finds all sorts of rocks like these. None are meteorites though.



posted on Apr, 10 2019 @ 10:52 AM
link   
a reply to: All Seeing Eye




Note the minimal amount of top soil above.


Looks completely normal to me. Heavy clay like that does not really break down that easy. Take my garden, you only have to dig down a little way before you hit clay (chalky clay in my case). Why do you think this is in any way odd?



posted on Apr, 10 2019 @ 10:54 AM
link   
a reply to: ignorant_ape

Not very likely to be calcite. One of the defining features of red clay is that it’s extremely deficient in Calcium and Potassium.



posted on Apr, 10 2019 @ 11:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: All Seeing Eye




Note the minimal amount of top soil above.


Looks completely normal to me. Heavy clay like that does not really break down that easy. Take my garden, you only have to dig down a little way before you hit clay (chalky clay in my case). Why do you think this is in any way odd?
The areas adjacent to this area have good soil depth, what you would expect to find. No real old growth woods in this area, but areas next to it do. I am taking into consideration old logging as well.

In the spring below you will find nothing but broken stone, sharp stone, nothing rounded. Further down you will find bedrock exposed, with bed rock, rocks that are starting to round.

Further up the stream same thing, bedrock, rocks, starting to round.



posted on Apr, 10 2019 @ 11:38 AM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

it does not matter what the clay is - nor its mineral composition - the calcite deposits on a rock - come WITH the rock - not the overlying soil



posted on Apr, 10 2019 @ 03:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: All Seeing Eye

i is only an hobbyist - so am crap at id from pics offered with no context

but google " black calcite " and click images .

you cite " below a spring " is the predominant geology of the area limestone ?

calcite is common - and the colour comes from contamination by metalic salts
The spring is downhill from the clay and odd rocks within the clay. The white rocks are spread all over. The blackened white rocks are found in the spring, downhill from the clay deposits. The blackened white rocks are not found further up or further down the spring, only directly below the clay and white rocks.



posted on Apr, 10 2019 @ 03:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: All Seeing Eye




Note the minimal amount of top soil above.


Looks completely normal to me. Heavy clay like that does not really break down that easy. Take my garden, you only have to dig down a little way before you hit clay (chalky clay in my case). Why do you think this is in any way odd?
The areas adjacent to this area have good soil depth, what you would expect to find. No real old growth woods in this area, but areas next to it do. I am taking into consideration old logging as well.

In the spring below you will find nothing but broken stone, sharp stone, nothing rounded. Further down you will find bedrock exposed, with bed rock, rocks that are starting to round.

Further up the stream same thing, bedrock, rocks, starting to round.


I still don't see why that's an issue. You are basically saying there are rocks and there is soil. Okay we get it. It still has nothing to do with the age of the earth. What reason do you have to say there is anything at all wrong with that? Have you done any scientific analysis of the rocks and soil? No offense, a picture of rocks and dirt is not really evidence of anything.



posted on Apr, 10 2019 @ 04:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: All Seeing Eye




Note the minimal amount of top soil above.


Looks completely normal to me. Heavy clay like that does not really break down that easy. Take my garden, you only have to dig down a little way before you hit clay (chalky clay in my case). Why do you think this is in any way odd?
The areas adjacent to this area have good soil depth, what you would expect to find. No real old growth woods in this area, but areas next to it do. I am taking into consideration old logging as well.

In the spring below you will find nothing but broken stone, sharp stone, nothing rounded. Further down you will find bedrock exposed, with bed rock, rocks that are starting to round.

Further up the stream same thing, bedrock, rocks, starting to round.


I still don't see why that's an issue. You are basically saying there are rocks and there is soil. Okay we get it. It still has nothing to do with the age of the earth. What reason do you have to say there is anything at all wrong with that? Have you done any scientific analysis of the rocks and soil? No offense, a picture of rocks and dirt is not really evidence of anything.


What I find odd is the placement of the "Rocks" or "Concretion" rocks inside the clay. This is undisturbed material, how did they get there, and where did they come from, and when. How where they formed? They are too odd to be acceptable as "Normal".



posted on Apr, 10 2019 @ 04:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye
What I find odd is the placement of the "Rocks" or "Concretion" rocks inside the clay. This is undisturbed material, how did they get there, and where did they come from, and when. How where they formed? They are too odd to be acceptable as "Normal".


Clay dirt forms from water moving over rocks and eroding them along with weathering of soil and rocks over time. So the same exact explanation holds for both the round rocks and the formation of clay dirt around them. Geologically it makes perfect sense. The clay dirt wasn't there forever it formed over time from erosion, just like the shape of the rocks.


edit on 4 10 19 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2019 @ 07:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye
What I find odd is the placement of the "Rocks" or "Concretion" rocks inside the clay. This is undisturbed material, how did they get there, and where did they come from, and when. How where they formed? They are too odd to be acceptable as "Normal".


Clay dirt forms from water moving over rocks and eroding them along with weathering of soil and rocks over time. So the same exact explanation holds for both the round rocks and the formation of clay dirt around them. Geologically it makes perfect sense. The clay dirt wasn't there forever it formed over time from erosion, just like the shape of the rocks.



But some of them are pulled out, already broken and pieces missing. Again, they are all at irregular angles. If, they were all on the same plane then maybe. But they arn't.



posted on Apr, 10 2019 @ 09:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye
What I find odd is the placement of the "Rocks" or "Concretion" rocks inside the clay. This is undisturbed material, how did they get there, and where did they come from, and when. How where they formed? They are too odd to be acceptable as "Normal".


Clay dirt forms from water moving over rocks and eroding them along with weathering of soil and rocks over time. So the same exact explanation holds for both the round rocks and the formation of clay dirt around them. Geologically it makes perfect sense. The clay dirt wasn't there forever it formed over time from erosion, just like the shape of the rocks.



But some of them are pulled out, already broken and pieces missing. Again, they are all at irregular angles. If, they were all on the same plane then maybe. But they arn't.


Again, that doesn't matter because everything moves over time and you don't even know the geological history of that area or how often the ground has been disturbed there.

Landslides, erosion, continental drift, earthquakes, wind, uplift, floods, tornadoes, rivers, storms, humans, other organisms and dozens of other factors can play a role in that. There is no reason to think they should all be perfectly uniform, facing the same angle or have exactly even erosion.

When rocks get compressed they can become fragmented and become jagged, while with water erosion they generally become more rounded.

I'm not a geology expert, but there is a lot of good information out there if you search google for clay rocks erosion, etc.


edit on 4 10 19 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2019 @ 12:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

Geology was my favorite freshman subject, second to computer science. It's no wonder many make a career of it.

Very true, things don't always stay put. Anticlines and synclines and basins and domes, oh my. Terminal moraines and alluvial fans.

edit on 4/11/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2019 @ 04:07 AM
link   
a reply to: All Seeing Eye




The areas adjacent to this area have good soil depth, what you would expect to find. No real old growth woods in this area, but areas next to it do. I am taking into consideration old logging as well.


Do you not think that the simple explanation for this is the the soil has dropped away down that near sheer drop underneath it due to:gravity?




top topics



 
17
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join