Alternate explenation for enhanced life spans

I know there are already threads on ancient life spans, but I feel a new perspective on the issue might shed light in areas not touched upon by them. Without going into a philisofical debate on the interpretation of the bible..the only real source of documantation for this phenomina, I would like to speculate on the possibilty of meteriological , and geomagnetic activity being the reason for this possible reality. With our modest advancements in medicine today we are seeing dramatic increases in life spans for humans from even a couple of generations ago. Image this reality being possible due to natural factors and not artificial means or Godly intervention.

I was looking at alternative medicine a while back and happend to come across what is known as hyperbolic oxigen treatemt. It consists of highly presurised, concentrated oxigen totally saturating the bodies tissues. It is nothing different than what a diver would be treated with if he rises too quikly from great depths. It is effective to the extent that the bodies natural regenerative properties are enhanced, circulation improved, cellular life span increased, as well as a whole host of interesting qualities. It has been demonstrated that subjects that undergo prolonged treatments over an extended period of time enjoy greater health, increased stamina, faster reflexes as well as little to no sickness. This in addition to reduced recover time for a very varried and long list of afflictions. Here are some it is used to treat-www.drcranton.com... -

I was then wondering, if the human body functions so much better under these highly oxigenated, highly presurised conditions, one could argue that that is indeed the most natural environment for it. Also if the reserch is true then all the tissues in the body would benefit from greater life spans due to less cellular decay. This leads me to beleive that the life spans of ancient peoples as described in the bible are a result of a higher concentration of oxigen in a more presurised atmosphere. it is possible that as the earths climate changed, and its atmosphere leeked into space, the life spans of people slowly decreased. If our planet at one time had an atmosphere like that of a huge hyperbolic oxigen chamber we might expect this to evedent in other species on our planet. While we know the life spans of species around when the atmosphere was similar to ours, we do not know of species that existed before them, of which we have no record. It is safe to say that life begot life and that the species we do know of came from something living and not a rock. What we do not know is if the planet that sustaned their life was similar to the one we know now. It is known that our planet went through very drastic environmental changes and that is evident even today. What if when we were introduced to this planet, or sprung up from its genetic soup, we came into a world that actually enhanced our biology? That to me would explain why life spans were so long and why (as the atmosphere leeked)got progresively shorter.

What if diferent planets produce different biological enhancements? I wonder, anyone hear about our magnetic feild changing, what if it is cycling through changes untill it restores it self to a prior state. I saw on a discovery special that it will, in a couple hundred years, produce an aurora borealis over the whole planet. I wonder what meterological effects we could expect to see, better or worse weather? I bet all those positevely charged particles being attracted to the earth from the sun, producing said effect, have a enhancing quality to them on the human physiology.-

www.springerlink.com...

this link provides no concrete research but does show interest by researchers "that conditions on the Sun and in the Earth’s magnetosphere can affect human health at the Earth’s surface" There are links to research being conducted on the subject..but I'll leave that reading to you.

If we imagine a planet rich in oxygen, presurised enough to allow greater absorbtion of oxygen into the body.This coupled with a highly charged atmosphere, with positevly charged particles being fed into it in vast quantities from the sun, we could imagine greater life spans over generations with prolonged exposure, as well as a steady decline when said variables change over time. This would explain why we are not living as long as certain biblical characters while being the same species as them(presumably), just in a slightly modified habbitat. A habitat that if altered to better fit our biology would produce longer life spans.

I appologise for the links, I'm new at this, take out the (...) at the end and they will work, sorry.

Is this hyperbaric oxygen found in ancient tribes? or found in Bible?

This is Ancient & Lost Civilisations forum.

Again with the srious evidence, not saying your science or idea is wrong, but to get much further youd need to find proof of a completely different geology of earth as stated your idea.

if the Earth was that much different, then there would be evidence of super sized tree rings in 4-12 thousand year old specimens,

or bone yards of elephant tusks 70 ft long, as tusks grow with age...
things that are around today were 99% here also during the 'Patriarch' era which details a few of the long lived persons in the middle-east...

the tales of legendary long lived heroes in India are thought to have been
mythified around the same time as the old testament oral traditions

---the ancient Chinese too had legends, and all these three groups of mankind developed these legends at the same epoch...or so think anthropologists




mankind could not be the only species affected with this hypothetical high-pressure/high-oxygen atmosphere....everything living would be affected relative to each other.
so with a brief look at the hyper-bolic atmosphere model & the world artifacts around us,
there does not seem to be any solid evidence that the fabled 500+year lifespans were an actuality

[edit on 6-8-2007 by St Udio]

Well look at the dinosaurs for example, they did grow to astounding sizes, like the vegetaion around them, all in unison with eachother..then they die out and the vegetation "shrunk" in comparable size to what was the norm for thousands of years. I remember reading that reptiles have nothing regulating their growth, and without any hinderance to their development can grow as long as they live. This might be evidence of a more supportive environment. It could just be like the accepted theory says that in fact global climate change reduced the available food supply. I wonder though...why did the vegetation suddenly change in size and growth, like many other species?

Years ago there was a theory floating around that the Earth had a higher oxygen level in prehistoric times. This was why animals were larger.

With current oxygen levels, all animals expend a certain amount of energy breathing. Higher levels of oxygen means more energy to expend on size.

Anyway, it was an interesting theory then...

I have found a site that argues the fact that our concept of early earth may be slightly off.

www.biblicalcreation.org.uk...

It states that the levels of oxigen may have been higher than previously anticipated and that in fact may have been enough to sustain plant life, as such that oxygen that was presumed to almost inexistant (two thousand five hundred million years ago) shows viable evidence of its presence. It also states that the theory of a reducing or neutral atmosphere in early earth history in some instances lacks viable supporting evidence. by taking rock sediment and measuring the amount of iron in trace water one can extrapulate the amount of oxygen present at its formation. The concept is that

"the lower the level of oxygen ions in water (and the greater the level of hydrogen ions), the more iron can go into solution. However, the rates of dissolution have to be assessed experimentally. It is found that the reactions for Fe3+ compounds proceed very slowly. The prediction is that Fe2+ will be lost more readily than Fe3+. Using Titanium as a `standard' immobile element, the prediction is that a "reduced"-type (R- type) paleosol will have significant reductions in the ratio Fe2+/Ti but little or no decrease in Fe3+/Ti. According to Ohmoto(resercher in mentioned page), none of the paleosol sections examined yielded this characteristic. Thus, there are no paleosols that support the idea that the earth's early atmosphere was reducing (or neutral, for the same reasons). "

If our measurments' available result in an erroniouse interpretation of available oxigen for the entirety of prehistoric history, then a re-examination of our understanding of prehistroic life is called for. In fact the available oxygen for those lifeforms durring their existance is greater than anticipated. showing a dramatic reduction up into our own times.

"minimum pressure of atmospheric oxygen consistent with the data is greater than 1.5% of Present Atmospheric Levels. for the entire period of 3.0 - 1.8 Ga. " (300,000 million years-100,000million years),contrary to the accepted notion of they're being that or far less.

If life forms that grew so large and vegetaion that grew so dense and large as well, had greater oxygen levels than we thought present as they developed, it would be an obviouse reason as to why their size changed as these levels toped off to present day conditions. Imagine now the changes humans have undergone as a result of this ruducing atmosphere.

It might be argued then that since there is a definite pattern to the reducion in size of reptiles, progresivley, as we look at history chronologically, we could corelate it then to the progresively reducing oxygen in the atmosphere that eventually brings us to our present atmospheric conditions. Bearing in mind that there was greater oxygen present at the start of this "count down", we may attribute the great size of things to a oxygen rich environment. I think the problem is that previously we measured the earths atmosphere realtive to our own atmospheric conditions as being "optimal" for sustaining life.

We lack any fossil record from that time of anything beyond single celled organisms.(3.0 - 1.8 Ga) It might be noted that that does not mean there was no complex life. Just that we have no record of it. This means we do not know the average life spans of living creatures of that time..since we think there were none. I argue now that if compared to life spans of living creatures are enjoying now, we might find a progressive change. Using reptiles' almost unrestricted growth as an anchor and their presence on earth now in vastly reduced sizes, I see a direct link between environmental conditions being more favorable to life in times past than now. If not there would be some form of large reptile in existance, comparable to prehistoric sizes.

I dont think I adequatly explained why there is oxygen present, contrary to accepted beleif. Here is another excerpt from the site

"The arguments are based on the occurrence of compounds of iron in certain sedimentary rocks. Iron in the ferrous state (Fe2+) can dissolve relatively easily in oxygen-free water, but is converted to the insoluble ferric state (Fe3+) in an oxidising environment. Previous studies of certain Precambrian rocks identified as weathered horizons (paleosols) have suggested a general loss of iron, which has been interpreted as evidence for either a neutral or a reducing atmosphere.

Ohmoto's research was stimulated by some apparent anomalies in the conventional analysis. He found that not all paleosol sections of >2.2 Ga showed iron loss. Even in sections that did show Fe loss, only a minority of samples were depleted in iron. Furthermore, many of the post 2.2 Ga paleosols had lost iron (and in such cases, an atmosphere with some free oxygen is accepted). "

Then you combine that with a large Saturn size planet, next to earth, tugging on the atmsphere. It would have been in the position where Mars is now.




An interesting Jewish legend
[edit on 6-8-2007 by lostinspace]

[edit on 6-8-2007 by lostinspace]

I guess it is possible for a planet to abosorb another planets atmosphere if its orbit was close enough and its mass was greater. I could see even a planets destruction(as is accepted to have happened in our solar system)causing a disruption to neighboring planets orbits. It would be interesting to see how planets conserve or lose their atmosphere when on exagerated or unstable orbits. I imagine it follows rules similar to those of fluid dynamics. But look at the other planets in our solar system...it almost seems like their own atmospheres disipated or changed dramatically. The later is not so well proven, but the fact that planets like mars and jupiter once had different atmospheres is generally accepted.

A lot of sports use the Hyperbaric chambers in sports injury rehabilitation, particularly for hamstring injury's.

Hyperbaric oxygen therapy

The only problem i see with your theory is that humans did not co-exist with the dinosaurs. So would not have benefited from the higher oxygen levels of that era.

while that IS the accepted theory, that humans did not in fact share co-extistance with early earth life, there is a theory that the relative amount of time needed to "evolve" for humanity would far exceed the alotted time we humans give our development. This theory does rely heavily on the asumption that evolution does indeed occur and is the main factor in our development. While I would steer away from this issue all together, I am a proponent of the notion that civilization did begin abruptly from a historical point of view. I would think that it is simply that it had a greater head start in its inception than we attribute to it. This in mind, we could argue that the start date for humanity arriving on the planetary scene would be that much farther back in relative history.

I also notice a varried and diverse group of specimens that represent our chronological "evolution". It is in MHO that these specimens of human development are not a chain linked progression of the same species, but rather different selections from outcroppings of the genetic base for humanity. If they are the same species , given the alloted time gived for their development, we would have seen another "step" in our biological progeression. I do see a varried primate population though ,now, in our own time, co-existing with us. This proves in my mind that humanity has lived side by side with primates since our begginings. If in a thousand years some one were to uncover humanoid skelitons of primates and humans of the same relative time period, he might then make the connection that chimpanzies made apes, and apes made humans, within our relative time in co-existance. If the evidece supports cronoligical progression, it is a dangerouse error to fall in, that it is all connected to each other. You may have heared about the tour that "Lucy" will be doing from her native Etheopia. Lucy is supposedly a genetic link to our evolutionary process. In her I see a distinct species of primate that has similar traits as humans, but I would not weigh that heavily on that sole fact. I say this because all primates are similar to us, they share almost the EXACT DNA as us. Again if a future observer were to see a primates remains from a thousand years ago, and jusctappose them to my own he might then say that I am the "lucy" of my time, being that I show a distinct progression in evolution. We know better but we have the bennefit of this hypothetical situation's proximity to our own time. Give the same sinario a few more thousand years for all other representitive specimens to dissapere leaving only the primate a thousand years older than my self , and my own remains, and a falasy of interpretation could occur. I do beleive this is the case since the only remains we "can" find are of obscure species that in my mind did not represent the entirety of humanoid life on this planet from its inception to its current state. Again I say this because of the varried primate population representitive of our own time. This as well as the fact that we know that "primitive" man lived side by side with "modern" man as we know our selves. Who is to say that said "primitive" man didnt live side by side with yet another form of "human". We lack any supporting evidence, but as the case for anything that far back in time, we cant say that from our relative new interest in our origin, that we found every determaning fact. In our relatively short time seeking our origin, We seem to have convieniently placed everything in its "place". That doesnt sit well with me since usually the facts out last those that seek them out. We might never know, but I esteem humanity to far older than we speculte it to be.