The asteroid that hit North America caused an extension of the ice age that was about to end by about 1,300 years
About 13 thousand years ago, woolly mammoths roamed the North American continent and the first humans stuck a stake in the continent and are now known as the Clovis culture. However, geological and archaeological evidence shows that both disappeared suddenly, and scientists have debated the mystery of this extinction of both humans and animals 12,900 years ago.
The first hypothesis was that the blame falls on the ice age that was about to end but rapid climatic changes started during a period of 1,300 years of ice conditions. However, scientists could not agree on the cause of the sudden climatic changes. However, about two years ago, the geophysicist Alan West suggested that an asteroid or comet exploded above the surface of the Earth over the area that today constitutes the territory of Canada, and caused a huge shock wave and also created heat that caused fires in the entire area, which resulted in extinction. Another scientist sought to prove that West was wrong but in the end he found evidence that supported the asteroid or comet explosion theory.
Ken Tangersley, a professor of anthropology at the University of Cincinnati studied sites in Ohio and Indiana that offered strong support for the explosion theory. Samples of gold and silver diamonds found in these areas were investigated using an X-ray diffractometer and it was clarified that they originated from a diamond mine in Canada. Tangersley and West believe that the scenario causing the appearance of these materials in a much southern region originates from the massive explosive event described in West's theory. "We believe that this is evidence of the impact of a comet explosion in the period in question," Tangersley said. According to him, there is no doubt that these diamonds flew as a result of the explosion and were not, as was thought until now, swept away by the glaciers spreading south.
48 תגובות
To Roy
You, until now, have not proven anything except for pure scientific "creeping".
You also begin to discover markers of one-sided understanding. You are full of admiration for the basket of medicines that has been developed,,,,just tell me please why serious diseases (and not headaches) were not discussed following your miraculous revelations. Please tell me about terminal illnesses that your restriction enzymes have removed from the world. Diseases that did not exist here at all until recent generations...
Tell me what facts you checked when you fiercely defended the asteroid "theory" which is all a theoretical assumption (after all, you were not present there controlling the event, if it happened and on what date is unknown..).
You ignore everything that is really important and take pride in the marginal things.
Have you already cured cancer??? And not one time but as a complete solution starting? Only in this period, after five decades of research, do you begin to understand the processes in the cell that lead to that cursed growth. We deserve a little more after the hundreds of millions of dollars wasted by you. Yes I call it a waste.
And don't tell me about miracle drugs that prolong life... It's not life when you don't function, just breathe. Where are you and your restrictions?
And all I asked for and said from the beginning is that the matter of the people deserves a more serious and not disdainful approach as some of you are taking. I have proven to you that you have a duality in your approach to various topics and apparently this is not exactly a scientific position. You also ignore this and do not respond because it is not convenient for you. But,, as those who want to be at the forefront of the introduction, research and global progress, you must behave differently.
You ignore again what I wrote about the cold hydrogen fusion. Why ? Maybe you didn't understand the point I was talking about because you are not comfortable?
It's all a matter of control and power.. You wrote something about the Inquisition. Once they brought these "infidels" to the fore, who spoke and thought differently, on all subjects. Today you inquisition those who do not think like you. Today this is your control and power and no one should even think about other heretical thoughts. That's why your responses are like that.
Meyer,
I do not have a supreme understanding, but I do have an understanding based on facts that I have checked. Such an understanding is definitely better than assumptions that are not supported by established facts.
You repeatedly blame science for the Inquisition, and ignore that there is no other way to establish successful theories or invalidate failed theories. It's not a pleasant way, but for now it's the only one that works.
You blame science for not producing real results in the last fifty years, and you have already been refuted here (and by the way, go to any successful pharmaceutical company and ask which of its drugs were developed and proven using restriction enzymes, chimeric mice or genetic engineering. You will not find drugs from the last twenty years, that none of these were involved in their development process).
And you blame. and accuses. and accuses. Me, the scientists, the governments, the army, the establishment. Well, enjoy. Easy to grumble. Easy to blame. But it's hard to look for real facts and it's hard to accept them when they don't fit with the world view you've already adopted. You can't admit that you're wrong, because that would probably bring down the soil of stigma and enmity that you've been grumbling about for years.
And that's fine by me. But... it's a shame, and also sad, that it's okay on your part. The facts around you. go and find
And finally, end of discussion.
To Roy
Well, if we've already shaken hands, everything is fine.
We have "few" differences. You believe that just being a scientist gives you a superior understanding and others who do not think like you do not. Here is your mistake. You will be surprised, logic pops up to visit even the simple ones...
The difference is in your ignoring the essence of things. For example, in your cold fusion for some reason the essence is about the trial or error proof. And I'm explaining to you for the umpteenth time that the essence of our dialogue is about attitude!!!!!
I did not claim anywhere that they were successful (a point you happily repeat to prove your point) and that is not the point at all. If they were successful then anything would be possible. I argued against the approach of the scientific brass that even before the test and even before the possibility of proof, they "stood up" for those 2 poor people and killed them. Later it turned out that everything was really nonsense. But... and it's a big pity why they couldn't have waited another day, two days, a week to hear what exactly was conducted and happened in the experiment. To do what scientists do all over the world and exactly as you demand from the scientists of the clouds... to check and get to the bottom of a matter before forming an opinion or dismissing it. There is enough time to cut and crush later. Where is the scientific approach and where is the response. And this is exactly the same attitude that you demand from others (for example the researchers of the clouds). As soon as there are two faces to the same concept, it is unreliable and serves a self-interested purpose rather than a global research purpose.
Science became institutionalized and "favored" precisely in those years when it finally received the large budgets it needed. I have no argument with you about the achievements of science and its contribution to life on our planet. Only in those years (the best-remembered last fifty) in which tens if not hundreds of billions of dollars were invested in research and development, we the inhabitants of the globe did not receive the "dividend" from the scientists. We didn't get anything new and revolutionary that wasn't there before (with the exception of the restriction enzymes..whose name is on everyone's lips and everyone feels the great change in life due to their discovery...oh really). From any other economic or social system in which such huge sums were invested and we gave it the respect and the status and the power , a change or results were already required. Much more significant and substantial results. You didn't bring that and slowly you turned from researchers to trailing economists and entrepreneurs who are looking for how to make a quick profit, who don't look far beyond their noses.
But what endangers their way is, one of our duties, to stand up to the inquisition of pure research as you demand. Regarding studies that are related to the continuation of the slow and tolerant scientific shuffling without a real purpose, there is room to forgive and not demand too much proof, theories can also be accepted with understanding, you don't just need to offend or doubt... there it's fine. It's ours.
I wrote to you that if tomorrow they start a global study with funding of hundreds of millions of dollars on the subject of the people, it will immediately become legitimate and all the opponents will quickly turn into researchers and all the doubts will turn into theories that the "intelligence" and the contractor have, everyone will want to join the "celebration" ... because it is worth money .
And finally I tell you that I quite identify with you and understand your problem to admit. A message from your side is the omission of the ground on which you stand today. She says that you should act (along with others like you) differently in research for the benefit of the planet and not for the benefit of the establishment. And you can't do that right now. So I have no grudges against you. You are not the type of crazy people who bring change to science and the world. You are one of those who know how to keep and preserve the existing..and that's fine by me too.
Good day to you.
Yehuda,
You are doing two ugly things here: you are defaming Michael, and you are hurting Meir.
Michael may be blunt in his words, but from my acquaintance with him I can say that the truth is a candle to his feet. Even in the discussions about your theory, he did not descend into rhetoric but continued to emphasize the problems with it.
As for Meir, with all due respect, he has problems with logic, or at least knowing the history of science. Michael and I try to show where his claims do not match reality. I find it hard to believe that you can support some of his comments, so it seems to me that you are simply using an opportunity to discredit Michael - and in the process encourage Meir to completely ignore everything we said in the current discussion.
Both the cool commenter and myself have already told you that Michael should be your best friend. It should be the uncompromising whetstone on which you refine your theory until it is worthy of presentation to the scientific world, instead of being a collection of hypotheses that cannot be proven or substantiated and that defy all known laws of physics. didn't you get it? Who does not. Your theory and you can stay with its current version, which will not be accepted by anyone who knows basic physics and is willing to sit down and think about it in depth. But don't ruin the knowledge for others because of your enmity for Michael.
Meyer,
I will answer briefly. I have no problem shaking your hand, and let's go our separate ways. But, what to do, you are wrong and there is no way around it. The problem is that for all you say about being 'open minded', you yourself refuse to accept evidence that your theory of extreme scientific closure is incorrect. Science has advanced humanity even in the last fifty years (to be honest, I'm a little ashamed that I have to argue about this). Many inventions have come from laboratories all over the world. You limited it to the last fifty years - we showed you that there were also amazing innovations there. Restriction to a domain that has never been hacked - we showed you the restriction enzymes that made it possible to carry out genetic engineering.
But then you said you don't know about restriction enzymes, but you're sure they don't hurt what you say.
So…
If you already know the results in advance, and refuse to accept any proof, who are you to preach to scientists about 'an open mind'?
Finally, I would like to remind you of a proof that you tried to bring about the closures of scientists: a pair of scientists discovered cold fusion, and the entire scientific community read their paper, came down hard on them and claimed that it was impossible. True, it sounds like a hard closing. But... they were really wrong! It was really impossible and they themselves issued a statement afterwards that they were wrong. If they succeeded, they would be the new Einsteins of the 21st century and everyone would praise them. But they failed a simple test - the reality test - and failed to show that their results were correct.
So you want to define 'closed mind' as a willingness to accept only well-proven results, and treat that as a bad thing. But actually, if we were to be open minded and uncritical in the above case, then billions of dollars would be wasted on developing the wrong infrastructures for the cold fusion that those scientists proposed.
And so, if I may summarize, the question here is not whether to be closed-minded or open-minded. You should always have an open mind, but pass every idea that comes through under careful and strict criticism. And believe it or not, Meir, but quite a few scientists are gifted with curiosity and ambition to try to find evidence for every possible idea.
for cool:
The question is why it should be relevant.
Hanan's answer really interests me because I think that despite his unacceptable views on aliens he is a decent person.
He also sometimes attacks for no reason, but when he is made aware of his mistake, he stops it.
I really want him to make it clear to his groupies that he expects them to behave like human beings even in front of those who disagree with their opinions.
Michael:
is it relevant?
Hanan:
I repeat and direct my question to you from a previous discussion.
Do you welcome the addition of Meir and Niv Green to your supporters?
Do you also think they are arguing objectively?
And what about the latest reinforcement in the character of Yehuda? Does he make you happy?
Know that I will interpret a non-reference as embarrassment indicating that your opinion on the subject is the same as mine.
Yoda Do you have anything but poison in you?
Yehuda:
I congratulate you on joining the Heizrists.
I understand that in order to discredit me you would even be willing to sell your daughter.
Have you lost all self-criticism?
You did not take part in this debate and entered it only to attack me.
By the way, Meir did a similar thing - his entry into the debate is response 25 - a real treat for the eyes.
He of course answered everything I said. of course!
For example, he answered at length the questions I asked in response 29 about the support he brings to his information and arrogance. His answer has already lasted 10 empty comments in which all he said was how childish and problematic I am.
Of course, he also answered the "baseless" claim that I made towards him when I accused science of injustices that people commit while using its fruits. He really does not know the difference between science and the wrong use of its fruits, but when Yehuda wants to attack me - there is no distortion of reality that is not kosher and this is presented as a personal attack that I am attacking and not as a position on a very fundamental error.
I repeat my words are well-founded and justified and your words only humiliate you.
To Meir
Nothing will help you. As much as you try to explain (and as much as you try to explain) Michael will inform you that you are not answering the subject at all. And it doesn't matter at all that any sane person can see that you actually answer the subject.
Do like me, ignore him, because he will always just say: "You didn't say a single important thing." He is such a type to those who do not agree with his opinion.
Ignore us. There are other commenters.
And you have one serious mistake. Your words about Michael :- "I hope for your sake that you are not what you sound like. I am sure that inside you are different." They are one big mistake! Not only is he like that, he doesn't even understand how disgusting and vile it is to be like that.
I have long since stopped referring to his comments.
And by the way, my friend Mazar Haim told me about a conference on aliens and aliens that will be held on Thursday at three in the afternoon in the library in Ramla, maybe I will go to hear about new findings. Blessed is the believer.
good evening
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Meir:
I am exactly as I sound.
I do not make any claim without backup and I do not personally attack a person who did not attack me.
I guess you are the same as you sound - just the opposite.
To Roy Michael and Yehuda and everyone who reads (if anyone reads)
Roy.
This has already crossed the line of reason. I will try, with all the difficulties I encounter in front of me and without cynicism or ridicule as the fingers have been demanding for some time now..
Roy - I mean the revolution in science. Restriction enzymes, (and forgive me for being a layman who does not understand what it is except for the knowledge you gave regarding the development of drugs or substances) for me, an enzyme is a point catalyst. I don't know what a restriction is, sorry. But this is a continuation of research based on knowledge accumulated over years that has reached maturity. If this was a scientific revolution, it would have long since become knowledge and public domain. And it is not!
There is no new chemical system there! And chemistry has been working in the same way and concept for many years. I already told you that my daughter is currently doing a doctorate in organic chemistry at the Technion and sometimes we talk. All the researches at them (and this institution should not be underestimated) are a continuation of previous researches and their development. There is nothing real new. They have breakthroughs there as well, but there is no revolution in understanding chemistry and using it/doing it in a different new way to break through horizons. And make no mistake, I greatly appreciate her work and the work of the other researchers at the same institution.
True and revolutionary breakthroughs and discoveries came only when someone broke the tools and took a different and new direction, without fear. Today you are afraid, it is more important to take care of the next budget than to "maintain" the existing one, therefore revolutionary ideas have no place with you. Here science misses and wastes.
From this, in my opinion, also stems from your reference to the issue of the obim, which is problematic (the obim) on any scale. But, the lack of attention of global scientific research to such a strange and fascinating phenomenon while rejecting and denying it, with the same tools that the same science "equips" other subjects, cries out to the heavens. That's what I was aiming for.
To Michael
I hope for your sake that you are not what you sound like. I'm sure inside you are different.
Try to be a little more open. Accept other people's things..you don't have to agree with them, but respect their opinion. Your comments create anti against you and it's a shame because you definitely have a lot to give. You are not honest with yourself and this is your biggest mine. You will not achieve your position in life, your development and your progress through this approach. Go together with others, share your opinion with them and when they don't accept it, respect them, don't try to hurt or belittle them. That way you will get where you really want.
to Judah
Today we met and I heard from you for the first time. It all started with the asteroid story last week. The funniest thing was that there was someone here who argued against the published article. He said that it is impossible to determine that it is an asteroid without any in-depth (scientific) examination, but based on a statement from someone behind a desk that he thinks is reasonable to state. The same person who claimed to be testing is a UFO enthusiast/researcher and immediately he was attacked for his words and UFO connections were attributed to them. Hence the whole subject of UFO research was continuously slandered based on lack of evidence or weak and unreliable evidence, baseless theories in conclusion that everything is nonsense and delusions without any proof...all of course In the name of "pure" science. The same science that accepted unquestioningly and happily, without any actual proof, the theory and explanation about an asteroid that hit North America 13,000 years ago.
Finally, if anyone was hurt by my words or my expression, I apologize to them. That is not my intention and in the heat of things it is possible that expressions were said or thrown that are not appropriate.
Good evening everyone
Meir:
From the beginning of the discussion to the end, all your arguments are to Adam's body.
You didn't say a single relevant thing.
At least with Yehuda, this behavior started after he tried to defend his positions - (and this does not pass for him, and even as part of his appeal to you, he tries to thread another baseless slander motivated by exactly the same motives as yours, even though he tells you to avoid this behavior) with you, it started right from the beginning.
Of course, even now you didn't answer anything I said.
To Meir
Why you need to respond personally:-
"You are a pair of narrow-minded and problematic brats."
This only leads to reactions on their part in the style:-
"You are boring"
"You don't even understand the difference between science and the use of the tools he developed." and more
"Vote for us what achievement you have achieved in your life"
As if only idiots are allowed to respond with knowledge.
At least for one of them it is a way of life that shows poor characteristics, and it is highly desirable that you do not make it a way of life either.
So don't be mean and respond only to the topic and not personally, because beyond that,
I enjoy your response, and the fact that you show the shortcomings of the proof in the case of the Canadian comet, which are no less than the shortcomings that exist on the issue of aliens and aliens. Your words Meir:-
"Personally, I don't have more faith than you do in the matter of the giants. But, I have a lot of doubts! This is a basic thing for any scientific research, you don't have it! And it's very strange for someone who deals with science. Moreover, you loosen the hands of other researchers and many researchers from the academies in the whole world". end quote,
We must be a candle to the feet of every commenter, especially if he is from the academy and evaluates himself, in every subject and research.
Continue in your faith, and I accept your response with all the questions you raise with understanding and thought. (besides the personal attack towards me who is commenting)
good evening
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Meyer,
I really don't know what to tell you. The logic you are using is just completely delusional. You are confusing scientific developments with scientific theories, and between feasibility and usefulness. And you also confuse what you don't know with what you know, with reality.
You say that - "The development you mentioned about the restriction bugs (I don't know what it is at all) is very nice. But it is a total integration of existing information and research systems on the basis of technology that was already formulated in the past."
But, Meir, if you don't even know what restriction enzymes are, how can you even determine that it is a refinement of information and research systems and nothing else?!
And in general, what -=isn't=- perfection of information and research systems?? After all, this is what every discovery and scientific progress throughout history is based on!
To Michael
You need to tell the truth as much as it hurts.
you need to grow up In your answers, distinguishing Maroi from the appearance of a character is quite problematic. I really hope that on your birthday they light more than HI
Candles, because in some of your answers the style is more suitable for a Bar Mitzvah.
To Roy
When it comes to your stubbornness you are especially "difficult to understand". I don't hurt you with childish pranks, you do.
In one article you rule out any theory or possibility of probability since it discusses objects that are out of agreement...among another article that discusses an asteroid. There it is about a theory in general (but brought by a scientist) about plausibility without any clear and solid proof about an event from 13.000 years ago. That is to say nothing at the moment and about the possibility of what happened. Here you fiercely defend it. This is inconsistent behavior and a dangerous approach for those who deal with science and even Writes articles in the knowledge…
In addition you have strange determinations contrary to everything that has been said and written for you. So either you learn to read, or you have comprehension problems. I stated that I do not accept the subject of the Gentiles with more faith than yours!!! But you continue to attribute opinions and conclusions to me, not mine. Therefore, if I am a little more direct in my words, do not see it as a personal insult.. That is not my intention and I am sorry and apologize if you felt that way.
And I'm also a little uncomfortable repeating what I wrote... maybe because you continue to ignore what is written. I have no problem with scientific developments for the benefit of the planet. The development you mentioned about the restriction bugs (I don't even know what it is) is very nice. But it's a total refinement of existing information and research systems based on technology that was already formulated in the past. And if that's all you can present after 50 years of crazy spending on science and research, it's the so-called "full gas in neutral".
I don't know where you got the idea that I pretend to know a lot. I don't know more than the average person in the world. I only have a little diagnostic ability and lack of fear of bodies and systems. The fact that today finds billions of dollars for research in the world without a real return, is equivalent to the increase in the level of poverty, hunger and backwardness in the world.
It means preaching. And so when I come across comments like yours, it's clear to me that there is nothing new under the sun and that's a shame. I expected a more open approach and that's what I aimed for.
Meyer,
The discussion, as far as you are concerned, has probably descended to the level of personal insults. I refuse to descend to the level of such children's games, and I will try to address your claims objectively.
You claim to know a lot, but judging by the analysis you gave me, it's probably not quite true. For example:
I saw the Larry King videos you sent me, and I wasn't convinced.
I went to Stanton Friedman's website, read some of what he had to offer, and was not convinced.
I went to Ted Phillips's website which brings together 4,000 physical evidences of UFOs, and I was not convinced (his physical evidence is in the style of a 'forest fire' after people saw something black hovering over the forest).
Beyond that, I go through university press releases every day, and am especially interested in everything related to extraterrestrial life.
I wonder if you bother to do the same in the subjects that interest you. But in short, Meir, I go over a large amount of material, but I can't find real evidence anywhere. All the evidence presented is based on eyewitness testimony of people. They could see a balloon, a kite, an innovative aircraft, a plume of smoke, an extremely bright cloud or anything in between. Physical evidence has never been discovered that could not be explained in a simpler way than UFOs, such as a natural forest fire, the detonation of an explosive device, pranksters making wheat circles, and so on.
You want to link all of these with UFOs and aliens? You can, of course, and that is your full right. However, evidence that is so fragile and that can be interpreted in many ways does not make the theory more grounded. In order to prove a big theory like a connection between UFOs and aliens, you need really big proofs, and these are not found.
By the way... I don't like repeating myself... because, you know, I also answered you in the previous discussion in response to the exact same question (!!), but restriction enzymes are an amazing new type of technology that was developed in the XNUMXs and allows us to carry out genetic engineering in living organisms such as bacteria . Almost all biological research and development that exists today uses this technology to achieve results or prove their effectiveness.
still ignoring? Well, enjoy yourself. I'm sure it's easy to build theories in the air, ignore every problem presented to you and accuse everyone of being closed minded.
Meir:
I just read the nonsense about the negative contribution of science.
I have no words.
You don't even understand the difference between science and using the tools it developed.
Life in the mental swamp must be an exciting experience for you.
Meir:
Although I decided a long time ago that you are boring and the discussion with you contributes nothing, but I must tell you a few things about my personal background:
Where do you get your "knowledge" about large systems like the army?
I, at least, can say that I served over twenty years in senior positions in the army and I tell you that you are talking nonsense.
Tell me, then, what your background is on this.
And as for our relative ability (Roi's and mine in relation to you) to correctly evaluate the information that comes to us - please point out to us what achievement you have achieved in your life - something that you think elevates you from the people and from us.
We both have advanced degrees (with a high GPA) from respected universities and each of us has a number of tangible achievements that he can point to (eg by linking on the internet). what about you? What is the basis of your boundless arrogance?
The animals in the area of the attack experienced a huge "bar bq" event. Everyone was saved.. by fire.
To Roy
The weight and strength of the evidence base you accept the asteroid theory
The physical evidence on obamim does not come close to the end. Only yours disturbs that there is no "consensus" in the branch of science. This is clear to me and I have no other expectations from you.
It is also clear to me that if 2000 scientists came out with a concentrated reading that the issue does exist and is active, you will "snap" and change your mind.
Personally, I have no more faith than you do in the matter of the people. But, I have a lot of questions! This is a basic thing for any scientific research, you don't have it! And this is very strange for someone who is involved in science. Moreover, you let go of the hands of other researchers and many researchers from academies all over the world.
On the other hand, you have absolutely no doubt as to the asteroid that was or was not on material that scattered or did not scatter or perhaps scatters at all under circumstances that no one knows (and no one knows), but that their existence is accepted by you on the basis of "hypothesis" only.
But.. if someone comes tomorrow and comes up with a "hypothesis" on the topic of the obim (after his research) you will despise him!. One of the well-known scientists in the field of hydrogen fusion physics is Stanton Friedman. That person informs you with a waved head that based on the physical evidence there is an existence of extraterrestrials visiting here.
You blatantly ignore it and rely on Philip who saw documents from military personnel who claim (again, people's testimony no! Military testimony yes?) that they know nothing about Abami and that they will never be briefed on it.
Listen, you may be a "scientist" but you clearly don't understand the behavior of people and large systems like the army for example. An essential part of the army's work is the compartmentalization and non-distribution of information, except for a specified distribution. The more classified the material, the lower the distribution. I feel quite strange that I even need to explain this to you since it is a basic thing and anyone with common sense should know this. So Philip's "special" testimony on those pages is not at all relevant to his claim.
The texture of the questions and claims you brought is not suitable for a serious person who claims in-depth research as the basis for any hypothesis, determination and analysis.
Your approach is the wrong one to me and when I saw the correspondence here I just started laughing. I'm not going into additional motives that you probably have and you know! what am i talking about
Unlike you (watch Larry King's broadcast) I did read Philip's article
And I was quite disappointed. I recognize that a considerable part of the human testimonies is not serious and does not meet any standard. Some of the physical evidence is incomprehensible and unclear. I don't know if extraterrestrials actually exist or not and if it's all people's imagination. I approached as an average and simple person that if there is so much evidence in many places in the world with very similar muffins in areas that have no connection between them. After all, this is something that needs to be researched and tested in depth. If we add the government denials (for example the British government that denied the study of the phenomena of the masses all the time and suddenly published a whole book of studies and observations) accompanied by frequent changes of position of the governments, this for me must be more strongly charged than agreeing to the theory of an asteroid 13,000 years ago.
And if you ignore that, you have a very narrow scientific horizon... You wrote about the great help of science in the last 200 years. You ignored the shocking negative side that a large part of those developments originated from research to develop weapons and tools of destruction that created destruction on the planet. I didn't just ask you at the time what science has given us in the last 50 years... and the laser research you wrote started long before the sixties. Beyond that, we didn't get much from him, but an extension of technologies from the past that had been "implanted". We did not receive new technology and there is no chance that we will receive the way it is conducted today.
Meyer,
There is no point in responding to all the personal comments you posted here. I'm sure if you search the net you can find details about me, and Michael has already revealed his background to you. If that's what you choose to visit, that's another problem.
For our purposes, note that the facts I presented on the subject of the KT era meteorite are all empirical evidence not based on eyewitnesses who can lie, twist and distort evidence. Scientists who do not believe in their truth can go themselves and see the evidence with their own eyes. If I want to investigate the UFO issue, where can I check the evidence myself? With eyewitnesses whose memory was already formed twenty years ago? In people who are influenced by the media and all the messages it conveys about UFOs? There are already dozens of psychological and sociological studies that prove that memory cannot be accepted as admissible evidence, certainly not on an extraordinary and fatal claim like the UFO issue.
When the alien spaceship is found on the surface of the earth, it will be investigated in depth and it will be determined that it is not of human origin, I will believe that aliens have visited the surface of the earth. There is currently no empirical evidence that aliens have visited Earth. And no, a performance at Larry King is not 'empirical evidence'. There is no connection between the press and the media and determining what is right and what is wrong, otherwise we would give up the judicial institutions and send criminals to be interviewed by Larry King so that he can decide their fate. And this is exactly what Philip Krass wrote in his article - that the media is biased from the beginning in the direction of what moves people and not in the direction of logic.
I am amused that you call Philip Krass an anonymous researcher. He wrote four books on the subject of UFOs, serves as the chairman of the subcommittee on UFOs of the CSICOP, and has been researching UFOs for over thirty years. So anonymous is not. He simply could not find any acceptable scientific evidence for UFOs. Why is he more or less anonymous than any other UFO researcher?
Oh, and about the ice cream you wouldn't buy from me? Good morning, Meir. You live very well on the fruits of the scientific method, which for over two hundred years has improved the living conditions of the human race, extended life by over thirty years, prevented and cured diseases, provided electricity, trains, ships, planes and cars, brought us to the moon and more and more. And one of the basic elements of the scientific method is very simple: do not accept a theory before it has empirical evidence, which can be measured, quantified, verified and reproduced.
And there are simply no UFOs.
By the way, without this basic foundation of empirical evidence, most scientific theories in the world today would be buried head over heels among hundreds of other theories that would all seem equally plausible. So if you really think a laser can be made using the rain dance and a prayer to aliens, feel free to try. I, for my part, will stick with quantum mechanics.
good week,
Roy.
To Michael and Roy
In short and to the point: you are a couple of scumbags with a narrow and problematic mind.
I am just shocked to read what you wrote. In simple language, you are defined as two-faced. When something suits you, even if it is the biggest delusion in the world, without any support but, on the basis of unproven hypotheses and theories without any "solid" evidence, then you jump up and defend,,,, simply sacrifice your soul on the altar of theory and science. When the subject does not fit your belief or thought, you deny, cut and worst of all ignore what is shown or said. Roy even directed me in the HaShevit article to an article about an anonymous researcher (yes he is anonymous in the field) frustrated to strengthen his claim. All in the name of "science". You both made me laugh, it's true that Roy looks more serious than Michael, but after what I read here, I wouldn't buy ice cream from you at a mobile kiosk!
Someone wrote that it is reasonable according to the correspondence that you are 17 years old and bored. According to the style I think he is right.
Isaac:
Indeed - whoever wants to believe nonsense can.
When billions of years become less than 6000, then what wonder that 13 thousand become 4500?
It is indeed strange how the resolution changes and most of the billions entered the first fifteen hundred years, but strangeness has never deterred the believers in nonsense.
in her
Instead of getting complicated with the dates and times and what the test was, I will provide a short summary here that should solve many problems in understanding. The story started during the time of Noah (Noah lived about 4500 years ago) and then humans angered God, and he decided to destroy man. As soon as the time came, God commanded Noah to enter the ark and in my book it is stated that God took two stars from a hot system and threw them to the earth, this caused a break because before you all the continents were united into one and at the moment of the break the continents moved away from each other at a very high speed, this caused it to be and my sons The people who up to that time had lived in permanently favorable weather conditions, everything changed for them in an instant (as a result of the deviation that the earth would have at that moment from the vulnerability of the above-mentioned stars), and this caused all the animals that existed to become extinct (on this basis it is possible to explain the matter of the dinosaurs and Bermuda Triangle matters and other matters surrounding it)
B.
I don't understand what you are trying to achieve.
It is not true that Einstein's theory was improbable because it matched all the findings that were known before it. Improbability stems from a contradiction to the findings and not from anything else.
A doctrine that was not plausible even before it was invented has never been accepted in science.
The failure on Yom Kippur was partly due to ignoring some of the findings.
You dismiss the current study when your conclusion asks us to ignore its findings.
All in all, the recommendation you recommend at the end (if it is even possible to interpret it - something that requires ignoring the strange phrase "certainties of probability") is a permanent candle at the feet of all scientists and as such is unnecessary
Roy Cezana
Probability is the failing word here.
Humans like easy and short reasonable answers that shorten the way but also fix the thought in fixation. The low likelihood of war on Yom Kippur cost many people lives. This is the same infamous probability since it relied on so much evidence.
The problem as always is the interpretation of the meaning. The natural tendency for interpretations that are convenient for all of us, especially interpretations that fit the worldview and basic beliefs.
I referred to the theory of relativity and quantum physics precisely for this reason that the meanings arising from the interpretations that have developed and the consequences that follow are not within the scope of reasonableness or can be easily deduced intuitively. A lot of thinking outside the box, hard to digest ideas were required for these theories to stick. Even Einstein, who in his ideas broke the structure of space, time and matter and created a structure that was completely improbable for the previous generation of physicists, was convinced of the mental fixation that non-local phenomena would not recognize their place in physics. And today it is completely clear to us in laboratory experiments that there are quantum physical states that involve non-locality as their basis.
Gentlemen, don't settle for probabilities, probabilities will not advance anyone anywhere.
On the other hand, I have no doubt that excessive skepticism is also not a solution.
That is why it is necessary to look with very realistic eyes and take into account completely different interpretations and not to fixate on the certainties of probability.
Your powers, of course
B.
I'm glad you no longer think that the research in question is unimportant and even decided to participate in it yourself.
Just to remind you, before you waste your time in vain, that you will never (but never!) reach certainty in anything, so if certainty is what you're looking for, you're not looking in the right place.
In science, we are always only concerned with identifying the most probable theories.
As more findings are collected, it is possible to disprove the prevailing theories or confirm them and increase our estimate of the probability of their correctness.
Even the current study is likely not the end of the road and its conclusions will be awaited, over time, with additional findings that will be discovered.
This research is, by the way, in my opinion, a wonderful example of the operation of the scientific method at its best. The researcher "came to curse and came out to bless". In his attempt to disprove the theory, the researcher actually found findings that confirm it and did not shy away from changing his position and disseminating the findings to the public.
B,
You are jumping into very abstract ways of thinking here. Of course, it is possible that all the evidence of the meteorite crash is actually related to something else. It is possible, for example:
1. The coal layer is the result of a huge fire that took place all over the earth regardless of the meteorite.
2. The iridium that was discovered in that layer was created by a chemical process that is not yet known to us.
3. The crater and the surf marks on the ocean floor are nothing more than a natural phenomenon of the shifting of the ocean floor.
4. The unique quartz in the crater was created by a chemical process that is not yet known to us (nor has it been discovered in other places except in meteorite craters).
5. All the quartz globules that we discover in a certain radius and direction around the crater are nothing more than the product of a process that is also unknown to us.
But at every stage like this, there are options that seem very likely, and options that seem less likely. We can dismiss a theory because there is only a small amount of evidence to support it. But if a theory comes along with a very large number of evidences that support the same conclusion, then we can say with a good level of certainty that it is the correct one.
By way of comparison, according to your claims we should live in eternal uncertainty and not decide on any issue.
My claim is more practical: even if it is impossible to reach complete certainty, it is possible to reach good certainty, and this is what most theories have today.
If you find a better way to reach conclusions, I'd love to hear about it.
Roy.
Roy Cezana
Thanks for the detailed explanation but….
Both parts of it are tainted by a fundamental assumption that is completely wrong.
The assumption that a certain logical path is unique and unique, and that certain facts point to a single causal process.
One of the cornerstones in the methodology of science is: the existence of virtually infinite multiple solutions to any mathematical or physical problem, and even more so in less precise sciences where the number of independent variables increases exponentially, such as biology, geology, and the like.
Referring to the first part of your argument, you describe a logical path of thought that goes through several sections. It is clear to you that all these parts are glued as one piece to a logical path and a single-valued theory. And not her.
There are so many other solutions and routes that can fit the collection of these parts into them and lead to an infinity of completely different theories.
We are witnessing the long process of scientific development in the last two hundred years.
The most significant developments and breakthroughs were created in exactly this way.
Einstein reattached the same facts that were before the eyes of many great physicists and created a completely different path and a theory with completely different meanings than his predecessors. Likewise, many breakthroughs have occurred in quantum physics and cosmology.
But to come and say that the knowledge and theories created are the end of the road would be complete nonsense.
Of course, no one can predict at what rate and when the theory that will replace the theory of relativity and the quantum theory will arise, which is clear that this will definitely happen in the future.
And back to the current matter, the certain reference to a small number of facts and the creation of these forced speculations is more reminiscent of the framework of a story in a play than a serious reference to exact sciences. Like the saying that…
If you saw a gun at the beginning of a show, be sure that it will be used later.
The physics that developed in the last century showed exactly the opposite, meaning that the theories are not intuitive at all. The complex order of reality is much more surprising than it seems to be simple and obvious.
B:
While you were having this argument, I was on a trip and at the show "Was or Wasn't". It turns out, then, that despite the temporary separation we dealt with similar issues.
The first response that is requested when reading your question is: "How do you decide, in your opinion, that a certain topic is worth investigating?"
Yehuda, Roy, and others gave you answers that together are very comprehensive, but from the debate you had with Yehuda, it seems to me that this question was not asked and therefore the debate is not exhausted.
You did tell Yehuda that he was probably joking when he talked about stopping asteroids but that is exactly what they intend to do and another insignificant study deals with formulating ways to stop or deflect asteroids.
The research on the evolution of species that you claimed had no importance and the answer he found (evolution) produced genetics and with it ways to improve agriculture, create medicines, identify diseases and more.
Discovering extraterrestrial life and studying their development may help us understand if it is necessary to defend ourselves against them or ourselves and how we should do so.
The conclusion from all the studies conducted so far on the question: "What is worth researching?" is that there is no subject worthy of limiting his investigation. This conclusion is expressed in the practice called "academic freedom".
You are trying to propose a new theory in this question but even the examples you have given disprove the theory you are trying to propose.
B,
I will answer your question in two parts:
Let's start with the fact that it is definitely possible to reach a high level of certainty about events from the distant past. An example of this is the asteroid that hit the Earth during the KT period. How did you formulate the evidence around this theory?
1. A researcher named Alvarez discovered that in soil layers all over the world corresponding to this date, a layer of soot can be found.
2. This layer is rich in iridium, much more than any other layer in the ground. Iridium, it turns out, is found in high concentrations in meteorites and high concentrations of it can be found wherever there is a remnant of a crater from a meteorite impact.
3. According to the calculations made by Alvarez, the diameter of the meteorite should have been ten kilometers. (In other words, there is a theory here that creates a certain prediction)
4. In the early 180s, they discovered a crater in the sea 180 km long, which is exactly suitable in terms of size for the penetration of an external body at a certain angle into the ocean, hits the ocean floor and slides a distance of 10 km until a fissure forms at the end. And all of this corresponds exactly to a body with a size of 15-XNUMX km.
5. The quartz in this underwater crater area has undergone deformations, of the kind that only occur naturally in meteorite impact craters.
6. Such an impact creates a shock wave that throws quartz balls into the air. It was estimated that the meteorite created a shock wave towards North America. And really, the farther you get from the impact site, the fewer pellets you find, but they create exactly the dispersion radius that was expected.
In short, it is hard to deny all this evidence, and this is just a simple example of how a solid theory can be produced based on relatively little evidence.
For every historical event that we stand on, there is a lot of evidence. Perhaps the theory presented in the current article does not yet have that many evidences, but thanks to the fact that it is presented in many, scientists knew that evidence should be sought for it, or against it.
Regarding the second part of your claim, none of this pays off...
How would we know that there was once an ice age if such studies were not done? How would they know about continental drift? About the KT meteorite, and more and more?
The knowledge about the ice age provides us with the insights about the Earth's climate. The movement of the continents allows us to predict earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, to understand the evolution of life and to find connections between different animals. The KT meteorite made us understand unequivocally that huge meteorites can hit the Earth, and apparently cause enormous damage (the layer of coal that was created all over the world at that time probably originates from the huge fires that consumed most of the Earth's vegetation due to the sudden and drastic increase in temperature due to the impact).
Without the research on all of these, we wouldn't even know that we should be afraid of asteroids hitting the Earth, global warming and the Syrian-African rift. And yes, we definitely have the tools to deal with all these problems.
good week,
Roy.
Sabdarmish Yehuda
You must be joking
to b.
Before we decide what to do we must decide what happened. If the problem is an ice age caused by a comet exploding over North America, then all we have left to do is try to stop the oncoming comet from crashing into us. It's not easy, but every now and then ideas come up.
But maybe the reason for the ice age is different, or maybe the destruction of man was due to another reason???, so we have to continue researching the subject.
So please don't underestimate the human ability to save Canada or anywhere else.
good evening
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Sabdarmish Yehuda
You really believe that engaging in this talk will help you stop a new ice age. It's a novelty.
On second thought, even if you take into account and plan this type of risk, won't it seem to you that you are simultaneously neglecting a million and one additional risks of this speculative type. What if the aliens invade here? What would we do if a large asteroid collided with us? What would you do if a traveling black hole swallowed the sun? And what will you do in all those risky situations that may arise from the various speculations in the various articles brought up on the site. Hard question isn't it.
A response to all those who do not think it is necessary to delve into the problem.
Let's see what happened in North America 12,900 years ago. There was a human population in these areas and a culture even developed, and suddenly for no apparent reason this population ceased to exist.
The important question that needs to be asked:- Should the disappearance of the human population in North America concern us or not?
In my humble opinion, we should go back and delve into this serious problem because it is related to us living on earth, and in addition, the reason for this total destruction may return with all its terrible effects.
Just ignoring the problem for the banal reason of "it won't happen to me" is dangerous behavior.
That's why I'm in favor of continuing to investigate and tackle this problem until we make sure it doesn't happen again. Just like we have to investigate and examine the causes of the Holocaust and make sure it doesn't happen again.
good evening
Sabdarmish Yehuda
To B. Let's say you are right and if you are lecturing, then you are lecturing on this nonsense (I also think it is a waste of time, but you know what they say - about taste and smell...) Now if you are lecturing, you are lecturing on an existing topic, it means that someone came up On the subject so that it is a closed circle the lecturers want to lecture and the discoverers want to be lectured on the subject so that everyone is satisfied and a few more people perished in the working circle...
The tinkering with the various quirks of different theories so much over and over again creates the illusion of real worlds that really don't exist. Just like the debates about whether there are aliens or not, whether the world was created or evolved. And all kinds of meaningless questions that continue to ramble on and on as if there really is something in them. As if you will reach a meaningful result at the end of the process.
Anyway, if you're a lecturer at a university, they pay you for the nonsense, then that's nice.
But otherwise all this is meaningless and will bring no one to anything.
According to your response, it's a shame at all that they found out that there was an ice age. Better to give humanity another X*K years to improvise.
Does that mean the study of history is unnecessary for you?
Every theory that is proven (and your claim is incorrect as if no theory dealing with the past is proven) teaches us about the behavior of our environment.
(The ground under your feet, like the Earth, the solar system, the galaxy, the universe).
Your question is over. What is gained from all these speculations in the article and the current topic as in other articles bringing up one theory or another from thousands and millions of years ago. It seems such a horrendous waste of time. And so lacks real interest, of course, outside of the topic that can be debated without a decision. The common denominator of all speculations and theories is precisely this feature that there is no conclusive evidence and one can continue to raise baseless false opinions and ideas because there are no facts except the findings that are tried to be pasted as proofs for any opinion that comes to mind.
Those who were betrayed by luck and chose to live in northern areas did freeze, their place was taken by more southerly ones that faced when the glaciers melted.
charming:
I'm not an expert on the subject, but in my opinion, the evidence is sought precisely in the "impurities" in the diamond - the materials that make up those "impurities" and their pattern.
The pure diamond is a specific and fixed structure of carbon atoms and therefore cannot be assigned to one place or another (theoretically there is also the possibility of identifying ratios of the different isotopes of carbon but I am not aware of a known correlation between the location and the ratios of the isotopes)
No.
It is about the northern part of the earth
Mammoths lived there
As a result of a long ice age and a drastic drop in temperature that they could not explain until the recent period.
Therefore, the mammoths and many other creatures did not survive, as well as humans who were found frozen in several places in the northern part of the earth
The people migrated north and from there to the North Pole and then to America.
Humans became extinct and then reappeared?
a question,
How do you know the location of the diamonds with the help of X-rays??