Fasinating post. Helps to explain many enigmas. It also show how resistant people are to paradigm shifts. They look to be well on the way to proving their theories. Hope to hear more later.

Originally posted by polanksi
Fasinating post. Helps to explain many enigmas.

Thanks - and it does, doesn't it?

I am definitely "green" - but also am totally fascinated by the idea that larger cycles - not just solar, but galactic and cosmic ones - can shape our planet and influence everything from climate to biology.

It also show how resistant people are to paradigm shifts.

:sigh:

IMO - it's a religious thing. With deep roots. Judeo-Christianity seems to mandate the concept of stasis, and/or imperceptibly slow change, in a way not required by other faiths.

Western science is based in Judeo-Christianity, and so, continues to insist that the earth absolutely does not and cannot change cataclysmically, and that all change is slow, be it climactic, geophysical, or evolutionary.

Apparently, denying scientific reality affirms God's omnipotence. Or something.

They look to be well on the way to proving their theories. Hope to hear more later.

They do, don't they? Very exciting stuff. Makes perfect sense to me.


.

This goes to show that more than a couple dollars needs to be spent on tracking objects in the solar system, and contingencies for moving or blowing these objects up should be in the works. I'm of the belief that putting to use some of the technologies we have, and developing other near space strategies can make the possible impact of a comet or asteroid a moot point.

But we need to pay attention to know what's coming. Pretty hard to be prepared 4,800 years ago, no excuse not to be prepared at this time.

"The Changing Earth: Explaining Extinctions, Atlantis and 'Everything'"

We are Everything. We is Everything

[edit on 15-11-2006 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

Awesome sofi

One thing I am curious about though is that if the crater is 12,500 feet below the surface, and it is 18 MILES in diameter, how big must that thing have been when it hit? And could it have hit on land, originally? I thought that scientists have said that any asteroid even just a few miles across would be an extinction level event? So I suppose the ocean must have provided one hell of a cushion?

Justa wonderin.

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Awesome sofi

One thing I am curious about though is that if the crater is 12,500 feet below the surface, and it is 18 MILES in diameter, how big must that thing have been when it hit?

Thanks. ...I'm thinkin it was probably heavy and fast - and not so big. Surely it must still be there? Maybe the group could measure and analyze it.

Or maybe someone here can do the math?

And could it have hit on land, originally?

Interesting question. But given the related tsunami, seems unlikely.

I thought that scientists have said that any asteroid even just a few miles across would be an extinction level event? So I suppose the ocean must have provided one hell of a cushion?

Justa wonderin.

They might be wrong? Especially if the asteroid hit the ocean, and transferred energy to the water insead of the earth's crust and mantle? Or maybe this one wasn't that big?

here's a thought: what if this isnt the first civilization on this planet to be this advanced? how many times have we been rendered savages again to start all over? i mean really think about it folks. in our "modern" era, we have forgotten how to do alot of things that one hundred years ago would have been relatively simple. how many of you really know how stuff works? how do you build a house yourself without any modern equipment? how do you grow your own food? how do you shoe a horse?

we have become so soft and ignorant in the ways of survival that if we did have an event of the type suggested by soficrow, most likely half of our population would die the first year from simple ignorance. the rest would sink back down into the old kill or be killed mentality, and we would be back in the dark ages. i have no proof, but it is my personal opinion that this has happened more than once.

if you believe in extaterrestrials, then ask yourself how they were able to become so advanced? most planets capable of supporting life would have to have the same issue in regards to celestial bodies impacting, right?

we have to build and maintain some sort of shield to protect the planet from an impact....it is the only way we will ever be able to move beyond the "just starting to figure everything out" stage.

again, simply MHO, but worth discussing i think.


[edit on 21-11-2006 by snafu7700]

here's a thought: what if this isnt the first civilization on this planet to be this advanced? how many times have we been rendered savages again to start all over?

Interesting thought.

I have always had this feeling that there have been civilizations just as advanced or more advanced than we are from our distant past.

It also seems we are over do for the next impact.

I think this also explains the ancient flood myths from all over the world.

Originally posted by soficrow
..................
More evidence that we should not squander our planet's bounty, or take abundance for granted.

I think this tells us we need to stop raping the planet, and take better care of what we do have. Live in a way that accepts the potential for catastrophic change as reality, and make plans to help one another when cataclysms happen. Which they will.

Nice find, but I don't understand what your first statement above has to do with the thread. How is the possibility that the Earth gets hits by asteroids every few thousand years evidence that we should not "squander our planet's bounty"?

Although in a way I agree with you, I also understand that we as a society do need oil and other natural sources that we are extracting from the Earth.

It would be great if we could live in total harmony with everything around us, but living in societies does not allow for "total harmony" with the environment.

We are a social people, we tend on the overall to stay in groups. Groups makes everything easier because then chores can be splitted between the many, and it is not the burden of just one person.

I also doubt that many people will stop using their computers, electricity, their cars, or even their bicycles, etc, etc.

Are you willing to stop using your computer and all electricity and not even burn coal, gas or wood for heating?

Are you going to stop using the vitamins and medicines that you or someone in your family might be using or needing?

Are you going to stop going to the market and start hunting the food you need?

Are you going to stop the production of pacemakers, and other medical equipment which is keeping millions of people alive?

It sounds good when some people start talking about "being completly environmentally friendly" but i doubt anyone will make any changes that would make oil and its byproducts obsolete tomorrow or 5 years from now. You can still be in relative harmony with the environment and use electricity, fuel your car, etc, etc.

We, as a global society, have changed quite a few things for the better. There are people who just want to make money and don't care about the environment or other people, but that is a fact of life neither you or I can change.

The part that I agree with is that we do have to accept that we live in a world, and a solar system, that will always be changing, and those changes will always affect us, sometimes the changes are good, but more often times they are not so good for the people that are affected by that change.

We do need to think of the future, and as i have said many times in the past, if we really want mankind to survive, we need to start making preparations such as either living in cities underground, or going to outer space and finding the technology needed to leave the solar system sometime in the future.

---Edited for errors and to correct statement---

[edit on 21-11-2006 by Muaddib]

my grasp of these mega-tsunami can't quite handle the idea
that several hundred feet of ocean floor sediment can be transported
to points some 13miles inland....in something akin to a 'plop' of mud

i liked the authors answers to questions of her article (3 pages worth of replies)
click the ASK SCIENCE by Sandra Blakeslee, link on the articles 1st page

i'll be watching for new developments relating to flood Myths and seeking evidence of mega-tsunami as a cause for the folklore or traditions myths....

the recent chevrons & craters dated to 1,200years ago(800AD)off N central australia. might be fresh in the collective conscious in that area of the world
to try & connect the event with the folklore/tradition/myth....
"IF" there was anyone close enough to see it
& make stories about a localized plop of seafloor mud
& water runoff that created a hundred meter rise in the topography
in a 50 sq mile region of existing terrain

Originally posted by snafu7700

thanks again soficrow for causing me to think outside the box.

Hey, you're welcome.

It's what I'm here for.

I have no problem with the idea that large impacts are more frequent than commonly thought.

But I would have thought an impact creating an 18 mile wide crater on the bed of the Indian Ocean would have had some impact on global climate.... and just possibly have left some sort of signal in the Antarctic ice cores?

Thus I can only assume the crater is rather a bit older than just 4,800 years.

[edit on 22-11-2006 by Essan]

Sofi,

Could we please refrain from blaming everything that's wrong in the world on christians? Most of the world is not christian. It's such a prejudice statement, that I find it hard to believe someone as thoughtful as yourself would not realize how bad it sounds and how utterly incorrect it is.

Originally posted by undo
Sofi,

Could we please refrain from blaming everything that's wrong in the world on christians?

???

I said - "IMO - it's a religious thing. With deep roots. Judeo-Christianity seems to mandate the concept of stasis, and/or imperceptibly slow change, in a way not required by other faiths.

Western science is based in Judeo-Christianity, and so, continues to insist that the earth absolutely does not and cannot change cataclysmically, and that all change is slow, be it climactic, geophysical, or evolutionary.

Apparently, denying scientific reality affirms God's omnipotence. Or something."



IMO - this statement does not constitute "blaming everything that's wrong in the world on christians."

Also IMO - the 'denial-of-change dynamic' has do with the industrialization of Western religion and the appropriation of Judeo-Christianity as a tool to control the masses - it does not properly represent Judeo-Christianity's underlying philosophies.

I find it hard to believe someone as thoughtful as yourself would not realize how bad it sounds and how utterly incorrect it is.

Thank you for pointing that out.

I apologise if I have offended anyone - and ask that they take the time to reflect on my meaning.

Hopefully, they will realize that it was not my intent at all to insult real Christians, but rather, to highlight one of the ways in which true faith can be -and is- manipulated.

Originally posted by Essan

I would have thought an impact creating an 18 mile wide crater on the bed of the Indian Ocean would have had some impact on global climate.... and just possibly have left some sort of signal in the Antarctic ice cores?

Thus I can only assume the crater is rather a bit older than just 4,800 years.

Why do you assume that?

Where are your references showing there is no evidence of such impacts in the ice cores?

...I would assume that the such impacts might help explain previously unexplained climactic anomalies.

...But I suspect that we both, like the scientific community, need more information.

Originally posted by soficrow

Originally posted by Essan

I would have thought an impact creating an 18 mile wide crater on the bed of the Indian Ocean would have had some impact on global climate.... and just possibly have left some sort of signal in the Antarctic ice cores?

Thus I can only assume the crater is rather a bit older than just 4,800 years.

Why do you assume that?

Where are your references showing there is no evidence of such impacts in the ice cores?

Er, aren't you suppose to show that there is evidence

Actually, to be fair, the Antarctic cores aren't really detailed enough. But there was no change in climate in Greenland at the time, nor, so far as I'm aware, anywhere else in the world. But I'd be happy to see evidence to the contrary

I would also like to know exactly one what basis they came up with a date of 4,800ya? None of the news stories I've seen seem to explain that.

If there had been a significant climate event around that time I could understand. The 4.2kya event for example (which, interestingly, has been attributed by some to a meteorite impact).

Originally posted by soficrow






???

I said - "IMO - it's a religious thing. With deep roots. Judeo-Christianity seems to mandate the concept of stasis, and/or imperceptibly slow change, in a way not required by other faiths.

Western science is based in Judeo-Christianity, and so, continues to insist that the earth absolutely does not and cannot change cataclysmically, and that all change is slow, be it climactic, geophysical, or evolutionary.

Apparently, denying scientific reality affirms God's omnipotence. Or something."



IMO - this statement does not constitute "blaming everything that's wrong in the world on christians."

Also IMO - the 'denial-of-change dynamic' has do with the industrialization of Western religion and the appropriation of Judeo-Christianity as a tool to control the masses - it does not properly represent Judeo-Christianity's underlying philosophies.

You've been told that judeo-christianity is running western science. have you actually listened to a science teacher? most don't believe christianity or any other religion for that matter. they are highly skeptical of everything. this is what slows down the wheels of progress. empirical process demands it, or so they say.



[edit on 22-11-2006 by undo]