Originally posted by Phage
Apparently the on site carbon dating as done with charcoal found at the site but I can't find anything other than what wiki says about it.

Well maybe Wiki isn't a best example of research sources, as anyone can really put in anything they like, or delete something they don't like (as has happened twice since I posted here)

So charcoal... from a fire...

So along comes this group of hunters... sees some old stone ruins from who knows when... and decide to make it their shelter for a time...

They kill some critters for lunch, leave a few arrow heads behind and cook their meal..

Then a few thousand years later some wizened archaeologists discover the fire pit and say "Oh Looky... now we can accurately date this site"

I find it odd how they originally found not tools, no signs of anything and specifically stated the place was 'cleaned out' before it was covered... now suddenly tools show up and yet it was still before pottery was invented...

Oh well I guess they have the PhD... so they must know what they are doing

Originally posted by zorgon
Oh well I guess they have the PhD... so they must know what they are doing

I know a couple of PhDs, work with a fair few too, various disciplines. The problem that I find talking to them is that they are so incredibly specialised and focused on their subject that they do not see anything beyond it. It is the very lack of interdisciplinary discussion about our collective history that has us still fumbling around in the dark. The answers are, in my opinion, all there, they simply spread across various academic disciplines and require collating. At the academic level, no one is doing that, nor does there seem to be any inclination to do so, which I find stupefying.

Originally posted by punkinworks
So to get across these waters man had to be able to build boats by the time mungo's people made it to australia.
Not that much of a stretch,

but then what does this have to do with sunken indian cities?

It was brought up earlier.
Thanks for your reply. Boats you say hmmmm.
I'll U2U you when I'm finished putting the thread I'm working on up.
stay tuned.

Originally posted by Phage
So...
That's our job?

So it would seem, though, personally, 'job' denotes some fantastic notion that I could be paid for doing this.

Originally posted by coodeytar At the academic level, no one is doing that, nor does there seem to be any inclination to do so, which I find stupefying.

And when you attempt to link pieces of the puzzle into a bigger picture... the hordes descend on you to 'correct' your thinking...

It's no wonder most breakthroughs in science are 'accidents' or dumb luck

[edit on 5-9-2009 by zorgon]

Originally posted by coodeytar
At the academic level, no one is doing that, nor does there seem to be any inclination to do so, which I find stupefying.

That is an odd comment since such collaboration is very common, standard procedure actually, in Archaelogy where a team is needed to handle all the diverse analysis of finds from a site. However I will admit that few if any archaeological teams employ astrologers or phrenologists to check out the excavated skulls!

More seriously what do you base that opinion on? Multidisciplinary teams have been the standard for many decades. Perhaps I should ask what specialization do you figure are needed on those teams that they now lack?


[edit on 6/9/09 by Hanslune]

The meltdowns and the ice ages are cyclical and there are a many other factors involved. This is the kind of disaster we are looking at now, with the potential of polar meldowns. This process is going quite quickly in the North pole and greenland area, but its antartical that will determine this. And our map will change drastically again. In this process there are also magnetic pole reversals, and magnetism is one of the forces that works on gravity, and gravity is one of the forces that keeps things near the equator instead of spread out since gravity works like a force that goes straight down and would keep things near the equator.

I think there are many cyclical reasons why whole civilizations may have fallen and been buried in the past. I also think we should be paying attention to this in a large way.

edit to add: If a meltdown does occur, initially the ocean levels would raise significantly by hundreds of feet or meters. But then the belt would stop and a rapid ice age would probably follow and earth would renew herself. We are in these times again. Both the meltdown and the magnetic pole shift have begun.

[edit on 6-9-2009 by Unity_99]

Originally posted by Hanslune

Originally posted by coodeytar
At the academic level, no one is doing that, nor does there seem to be any inclination to do so, which I find stupefying.

That is an odd comment since such collaboration is very common, standard procedure actually, in Archaelogy where a team is needed to handle all the diverse analysis of finds from a site. However I will admit that few if any archaeological teams employ astrologers or phrenologists to check out the excavated skulls!

More seriously what do you base that opinion on? Multidisciplinary teams have been the standard for many decades. Perhaps I should ask what specialization do you figure are needed on those teams that they now lack?

I don't suggest that any further specialisation is required on the practical level, on the theoretical level either for that matter. The whole problem in my opinion, with academia, is that it has become so specialised. Specialism most certainly has it's place, we require expertise, but that should not preclude a more holistic approach to all those factors that contribute to natural history, such as chemistry, geology, biology etc etc in order to fully appreciate how events have effected our development and the development of the planet etc. I have worked within the university sector since I myself graduated, my father is an Associate Professor, and it is, surprisingly very closed minded with very little interdisciplinary interaction, certainly very little research is conducted that radically crosses disciplines, and any that is, is likely commercially backed, in the UK, blue skies is virtually none existent.

Originally posted by Unity_99
The meltdowns and the ice ages are cyclical and there are a many other factors involved. This is the kind of disaster we are looking at now, with the potential of polar meldowns. This process is going quite quickly in the North pole and greenland area, but its antartical that will determine this. And our map will change drastically again. In this process there are also magnetic pole reversals, and magnetism is one of the forces that works on gravity, and gravity is one of the forces that keeps things near the equator instead of spread out since gravity works like a force that goes straight down and would keep things near the equator.

I think there are many cyclical reasons why whole civilizations may have fallen and been buried in the past. I also think we should be paying attention to this in a large way.

edit to add: If a meltdown does occur, initially the ocean levels would raise significantly by hundreds of feet or meters. But then the belt would stop and a rapid ice age would probably follow and earth would renew herself. We are in these times again. Both the meltdown and the magnetic pole shift have begun.

[edit on 6-9-2009 by Unity_99]

The last time the poles reversed was 700-800,000 years ago, I have no idea when it happened before that, or how frequently it is supposed to occur, I am sure I could find out if I needed to, but I don't see it as highly significant. The last Ice Age started well before that when the Atlantic and Pacific were divided, changing sea currents to the Artic. I think that was about 3 million years ago, but I can't be too sure. In theory, perhaps, since we still have ice caps the ice age has yet to end and the melt is inevitable. Very difficult to tell. Any rise in sea levels will be gradual, our ancestors had to adapt to far more rapid rises at certain periods. I am sure that we will cope again. There are far more serious threats really, most of them man-made. But there you go.

Many are discounting the significance of the pole reversal, but with us balanced precariously at our angle, with the forces acting on gravity gone, and with the enormous land upheaval that we are bringing on ourselves by not caretaking mother earth, who is alive and conscious and does take care of herself. With the pole melt coming down at the same time, the next few decades are ones we ourselves should be careful of. The cities that are discovered underwater, such as the one of Japan that appeared to have paved roads, are a sign that civilization has advanced in the past and was buried in both oceans and under the surface. We need to keep aware and informed and alert. But we also need to question the policies of our leaders and corporations and inform ourselves, grassroots, and become unified.

The whole problem in my opinion, with academia, is that it has become so specialised. Specialism most certainly has it's place, we require expertise, but that should not preclude a more holistic approach to all those factors that contribute to natural history, such as chemistry, geology, biology etc etc in order to fully appreciate how events have effected our development and the development of the planet etc.

Hans: I understand your point of view but unfortunately in the sciences a 'manager' unversed in the subject is not a viable option. The way science gets around that is by publishing, the information then becomes more available. Unfortunately the amount of data needed requires even MORE specialization- and that is exactly what is happening now. Of course the pace of scientific discovery increases each year. So the system appears to be working, despite its limitations.

I myself have tried to be an Archaeological generalist - I have found after 40 years that it is an impossible task for one man with limited time.

I have worked within the university sector since I myself graduated, my father is an Associate Professor, and it is, surprisingly very closed minded with very little interdisciplinary interaction, certainly very little research is conducted that radically crosses disciplines, and any that is, is likely commercially backed, in the UK, blue skies is virtually none existent.

Hans: Yes that is the pattern for today except in a few small areas. I would point out that in Archaeology,sites and the materials from them are gone over by multiple experts in many fields. The only possible solution is one that lies in the future. An AI that can contain thousands of human specialities in one ~holistic~ mind. However even that might not work.

We'l have to struggle on with our human frailities. This question is one I know that others are working on.






[edit on 7/9/09 by Hanslune]

Originally posted by zorgon
Well the poles can melt all they want and it won't raise sea level at all. Because ICE expands when water freezes so when it melts sea level remain the same as the water fills in the displacement left by the ice...

Only if all the ice on land melts would it make a difference

You just contracted yourself here.
Most of the south poles ice is on land.
If that all melted we would be running for the hills.

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by zorgon
Well the poles can melt all they want and it won't raise sea level at all. Because ICE expands when water freezes so when it melts sea level remain the same as the water fills in the displacement left by the ice...

Only if all the ice on land melts would it make a difference

You just contracted yourself here.
Most of the south poles ice is on land.
If that all melted we would be running for the hills.

Not that much of a hill... tops a few feet increase... although those dykes in Holland.... well

I had figures somewhere on that but not really anything to do with this thread.

Meh what the heck... you have to remember that the melt would be equally distributed around the world. The area of Antarctica is only 5.4 million square miles, while the area of the oceans is 129,443,784.35 square miles

"The average thickness of the Antarctic ice is 6,500 feet, ..." from;
Bramwell, Martyn. Glaciers and Ice Caps. Belgium: Franklin Watts, 1986: 19.

Ice takes up about 9% more volume than water

So calculate the sq miles times the average thickness... divide by 9% and you will have total volume of water... (approx ) now spread that out over the sq miles of the ocean..

Unless you live in Holland or New Orleans, I wouldn't worry too much

But all that fresh water might change the salinity of the oceans enough to make ships become rocks

I think we have enough indications that cities

Such as?

I just saw this on the history channels ancient aliens series. it was my first time hearing of this. they said some of the artifacts are 32,000 years old if i remember right. they said it was hard to dive because its at 170ft but that hasn't stopped them from bringing up artifacts. history is being rewritten right before us. it's exciting to know more of our past!