New thought on glaciers

[Capt Nemo]

Just had a new thought on the glaciation in Wisconsin. What if the north polar ice sheet shifted south during the Biblical flood and pushed everything around?

Here's what the ice sheet on Lake Winnebago can do in a wind. Think of what a continent sized ice sheet could do if it got moving!




So instead of a couple thousand year march, the bottom of the floating ice sheet bulldozed everything rather quickly.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Diving for Pleasure and Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[Duckshot]

Methinks you should study up again instead of just making things up. Navigators used upward of 50 stars and planets in their calcs, depending on what was available. Sun, moon, and Polaris the most common. Precise angular measurements were used. Even the Mayans figured out the planetary orbits thousands of years ago...jeez

You talk a lot.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model#Ptolemaic_system

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A Handbook of Civil War Bullets and Cartridges - Grab it through Amazon!

[Duckshot]

And how in the world did all those bombers in WWII find the way to their targets without GPS?

Oh yeah, a sextant, compass and watch...

Yes. And a map. You forgot all about the map which places Berlin in between Venus and mars.

 

[goldog]

Hey Duckshot. I just want to let you know you're not alone. 420k huh? What are they smokin'? Those numbers are always changing.

 

[No gold in NY]

It was pretty slow. The last ice age ended about 12,000 years age. But it lasted almost 100,000 years. Can do some serious grinding in that time.

So, it took 12,000 years for that glacier to melt as far as it did. I wonder if anyone complained about global warming?

 

[UncleMatt]

I want to commend the people here who are making reality based comments with evidence from science. The rest, not so much. It doesn't matter if you believe scientifically verified facts or not, they still exist.

 

[pcampbell]

Well its been some time since i studied it, but for starters they had the sun revolving around the earth, Venus frequently disappeared and materialized elsewhere, and Saturn zig-zagged around.

Totally wrong, but for all the right reasons.

Did you READ this somewhere? Or did you personally interview the old explorers?

If you didn't personally interview them how would you know such information?

You literally just claimed that carbon dating is false, that time is not a constant, and to ignore accepted scientific practice. But we are supposed to take YOUR word on a forum. You see the irony right?

 

[pcampbell]

So, it took 12,000 years for that glacier to melt as far as it did. I wonder if anyone complained about global warming?

Look we all know the planet changes temperature over time. However the argument for man-made climate change is the RATE of change. Yes a warming period happened over 12,000 years that melted glaciers. But what we are seeing now is the disappearance of a vast number of our remaining glaciers in the period of 100 years. That is very significant, and really quite stupid to ignore. I suggest watching the netflix documentary called "Chasing Ice" if you have any doubts.

The other thing is there is almost zero downside for accepting man-made climate change and being wrong about it. We simply develop better and cleaner technology to deal with it. There are massive downsides to ignoring it and being wrong.

 

[Duckshot]

How in the world did this happen? Somebody makes a suggestion that maybe a textbook is wrong and everybody jumps him like he's a direct threat to the liberty of the free world.

You literally just claimed that carbon dating is false, that time is not a constant, and to ignore accepted scientific practice. But we are supposed to take YOUR word on a forum. You see the irony right?

I never asked anyone to take my word for it. I'm NOT the one that claimed to know how long glaciers took to carve up the earth. That was the original post, that the textbook might be incorrect. Instead of exploring that possibility, or giving logical reason as to why that possibility does not exist, you wanna jump some dude for asking your thoughts on the matter? That ain't how science works.

BTW, time is not a constant.



Einstein told me so

 

[Kray Gelder]

Goldog, It doesn't matter what I'm smoking. Antarctic ice is on average a mile thick, and in places is more than 3 miles thick. What's the biggest number you can wrap your head around? 420,000 isn't even a blink compared to the age of the earth. 4.5 billion years, give or take. A billion is a thousand million, a million is a thousand thousand. 420,000 years is only about 9/1000 the age of the earth.

 

[Goodyguy]

The OP postulates a theory and is immediately denounced by his peers.
Kinda like what has happened all through history to theories that are contrary to popular belief.

GG~

 

[Duckshot]

Back around 1900 some scientist determined that the human tounge had different zones in which the four taste senses were felt. This is completely untrue, had been demonstrated as false by another scientist in 1975, and the tounge taste zone map remained in children's school textbooks until 1980. They even had kids in 1980 trying to map out the tounge zones by placing sweet, sour, bitter, and salt, on various places of their tougnes. Every kid that tried the experiment knew it was wrong, even the teacher had their suspicions, but the tounge map was still taught as scientific fact.

 

[pcampbell]

BTW, time is not a constant.



Einstein told me so

You don't understand special relativity then. If everything is on Earth, then everything 'experiences' time equally. To dilate time, you need relative motion. Time is a constant just not relative to other objects traveling at different speeds. For example if I was traveling half the speed of light and you were stationary you would see my minute as much longer then your minute. However that is only to the observer. My watch would record and I would experience exactly one minute even at half the speed of light.

Carbon dating has nothing to do with special relativity. And radioactive decay is a constant that has been proven over and over through lab experiments.

 

[DizzyDigger]

The locations and movements of the planets and celestial constellations
have been consistent for millennia..at least as far back as any known
records indicate. The Mayans and Egyptians had developed highly accurate
star charts, as did the Chinese astronomers going back nearly 3000 years.

Since the Universe is expanding, there has been slight movement over the
centuries, but this amounts to no more than a degree or two, and occurring
over hundreds of years.

Yes, Einstein was right, however time is indeed a constant unless you are falling into a
Black Hole, or traveling faster than the speed of light. At Earthbound speeds, traveling
at a high rate of speed around the world might amount to an entire picosecond difference,
so a trillion trips around the world would make you 1 second ahead of everyone else.

 

[Sockeye1730]

Goldog, It doesn't matter what I'm smoking. Antarctic ice is on average a mile thick, and in places is more than 3 miles thick. What's the biggest number you can wrap your head around? 420,000 isn't even a blink compared to the age of the earth. 4.5 billion years, give or take. A billion is a thousand million, a million is a thousand thousand. 420,000 years is only about 9/1000 the age of the earth.

Pretty sure it was a joke...

 

[Sockeye1730]

You don't understand special relativity then. If everything is on Earth, then everything 'experiences' time equally. To dilate time, you need relative motion. Time is a constant just not relative to other objects traveling at different speeds. For example if I was traveling half the speed of light and you were stationary you would see my minute as much longer then your minute. However that is only to the observer. My watch would record and I would experience exactly one minute even at half the speed of light.

Carbon dating has nothing to do with special relativity. And the decay of matter is a constant that has been proven over and over through lab experiments.

Well, Einstein kinda burst Newton's bubble on this whole gravity and time thing....sooo, science must be fake!

 

[Duckshot]

O.k.

Carbon dating has nothing to do with special relativity. And the decay of matter is a constant that has been proven over and over through lab experiments.

It isn't proven. The time decay takes is extrapolated from what they can see. You can't know that decay is constant over a 100,000 year period unless you have a measurement taken 100,000 years ago.

The problem with carbon dating and the fossil record as i see it is that age as determined by carbon dating is used to support the fossil record, while at the same time the age determined from the fossil record is used to support carbon dating. Both are dependent on the presumed age of sedimentary layers, which are frequently stood up on edge or flipped upsidedown completely.

 

[Sockeye1730]

O.k.



It isn't proven. The time decay takes is extrapolated from what they can see. You can't know that decay is constant over a 100,000 year period unless you have a measurement taken 100,000 years ago.

The problem with carbon dating and the fossil record as i see it is that age as determined by carbon dating is used to support the fossil record, while at the same time the age determined from the fossil record is used to support carbon dating. Both are dependent on the presumed age of sedimentary layers, which are frequently stood up on edge or flipped upsidedown completely.

Try again. Carbon dating doesn't work for fossils. Fossils are rock.

That said, what evidence is there that nuclear physics and forces have changed over the eons?

 

[pcampbell]

OK Ken Ham whatever you say. Obviously someone who denies modern science isn't going to be influenced in a forum thread. So believe whatever you want.

 

[spaghettigold]

Look we all know the planet changes temperature over time. However the argument for man-made climate change is the RATE of change. Yes a warming period happened over 12,000 years that melted glaciers. But what we are seeing now is the disappearance of a vast number of our remaining glaciers in the period of 100 years. That is very significant, and really quite stupid to ignore. I suggest watching the netflix documentary called "Chasing Ice" if you have any doubts.

We simply develop better and cleaner technology to deal with it. There are massive downsides to ignoring it and being wrong.

zero downnside?

 

[Duckshot]

So, Pccampbell, you don't have a measurement from 97,984 B.C.?