why I think the earth is a lot younger than expect

[indifference]

What's this have to do with time travel, well it may be a precaution to look for just in case it's ever achieved. To start with my explanation we need to do some chemistry: When two certain chemicals mix and are combined with an object, that object immediately petrifies. For example: a ten year old tree is combined with these chemicals and is petrified. Now with the technology of carbon dating, it will tell us the petrified tree is really a century old. However, we know that that is not true. In the instance I think the carbon dating of the earth is off due to my theory of what killed the dinosaurs. Tell me if you have ever heard of this-that there once was a canopy of some unknown elements surrounding the earth. This canopy caused the earth to be pressurized which is why creatures supposedly in the time of dinosaurs are so large. Kind of like how Georgia and the southern states of the US, where the humidity is out of hand, have very large insects where as places not so humid don't. I believe that back in the day the canopy broke and down came these elements which immediately petrified everything. And now since use carbon dating to determine age we get some rediculous number like 65,000,000 years. I don't have much support for this idea, but I find it very plausable. What do you thinki.

 

[swiftinfo]

I commend your enthusiasm, but your reasoning is a bit flawed:

To understand how flying insects can be larger in warmer areas, one must understand the principles of flight.

First of all, the warmer the air, the greater the lift. Also, the more humid the air, the greater the lift.

It order for an insect to fly in colder, dryer areas, it does in fact have to be LIGHTER.

Thus, smaller insects will live in cold, dry places and large insects will live in warm, wet places.

Also, rocks are not dated by the presense of radioactive carbon. Some other form of radioactive decay is required to measure the age of rock strata. Rocks usually don't contain a lot of carbon. Rocks are more silicon based than are organisms.

One might say that carbon lifeforms in the inner Heliosian Solar System are indeed parasites of large, silicon lifeform named "Earth". Earth eats meteors for breakfast and excretes carbon dioxide and other organic and inorganic compounds every once in a while through a number of its many anuses which we humans call "volcanoes".

We, the carbon life parasites of Earth, therefore, manage our lives by internally and industrially consuming Earth's flesh and Planet sh!+.

Remember that next time you sit down in a fine restaurant.

Here's something you should really really consider:

The oldest rock strata on Earth's continents are 4.3 billion years old.

The oldest rock stratat at the bottom of the pacific ocean however, is 200 MILLION years old.

Consider for a moment, that 250 million years ago, 96% OF ALL LIFE on Earth was wiped out by some cataclysmic event that no one has been able to pin point.

Earth also has a moon of a volume that would fill just about all of Earth's oceans.

Earth's moon is considered to be "TOO BIG" to be a "natural formation". Luna would be more at home in a more Jovian planetary system like Jupiter or Saturn, maybe Uranus or Neptune, but it is way too big to actually "belong" to Earth, unless at some point in time, the Moon was in actual fact, part of the Earth, and something massive and watery struck the Earth, filling the oceans with Water and shaking a whole bunch of loosely packed material such as the lunar regolith to separate from Earth's crustal structure.

Also, "something" wipes out tremendous portions of life on Earth ever 26 million years with clockwork-like precision.

Some theorize that the sun passes through a "danger zone" in our local cluster every 30 million years or so, as it rotates around the galaxy. The sun actually moves in three directions:

1) Running away from Andromeda which is out to "get" us.
2) Circling a local region of space.
3) Circling the galactic nucleus.

Others theorize that there is a "Dark Star" which orbits the sun in the opposite direction as the planets.

This "Dark Star" has an orbital period of 3600 +/- years and is likely a sub-brown dwarf. Not quite a planet, not quite a star and not big enough to be considered a "brown dwarf". It's like a really really big Jovian planet that makes its own heat by intense gravitational pressure. Enough heat, possibly, to support life.

The ancients refer to a strange people called the "Anunaki" who visited Earth almost 200,000 years ago and gave rise to human civilization. They used to change rulers every 2,160 years.

The last time any historical evidence of this strange "Dark Star" was reported was in the new testament of the bible, when the Magi from Persia followed this strange object until it "came to rest" over "the place of the King's birth".

Jesus also said, when he "ascended into heaven" that people would see him return the same way he left.

All of this possibly means many things:

1) Very soon, we will be visited by the Anunaki, again.
2) They won't be back until about 3600 AD.
3) Jesus was an alien, or a human/alien hybrid of some sort.
4) In thirteen million years, we're doomed if we don't get the flork off this planet or develop a way do deflect a G&d D&mn mini-star/superjupiter. Supiter?

Believe what you will.

I still say we need $125,000 to build a Sceptre of Infinite Possibility.

Regards,

 

[creedo299]

I think that the oldest rock measured, by correct dating, was the Minnesota rock?
This said rock was measured in time, as being four point six billions years of age.

Using a way of physics measuring, which I had sent to the University Of Allendale in Australia, on photonic star depth information.

I had properly referred to then, about two years ago, as (Fourier Depth Photonic Bundeling).

I had to estimate that the correct age of the universe was in the many billions, if not trillions of years in age.

The estimated age of the universe, by those said at only some fourteen to seventeen billions of years in age, is probably a religiously based maxim?

The depth that was told of perceived visual information from the Hubble on most distant protogalixities, was set in the quad-trillions of light years away in distance.

So just this simple information offered alone, shows a reciprocity that the age of the universe can not be a mere billions of years old, due to star field depth alone?

Remember the information as photonic realm bundling light, where old realm photonic information's are read against new contrast information's?

This compairson indicates that even these original primordial galaxies, may not even exist anymore?

So defiantly, the age of the overall grand universe, must certainly be within the trillions of years, aged and not a few mere billion?

Edit sentace structure, djb

 

[swiftinfo]

On astronomically dating the universe:

Recall what I said about quantum singularities being various points of universal creation.

I did some research on the method that was used to "date" the universe.

Apparently, a bunch of scientists took 100,000 galaxies, plugged their trajectories into a super computer and then had that super computer reverse the flow of time until all of those galaxies existed at a single point in space.

This single point in space is theoretically the "centre" of the universe and the resultant age of the universe therefore, is equal to the amount of time it took the galaxies that the scientists observed to reverse their progression through time and meet at that point. This value was on the order of 14 to 17 billion years.

However, if we consider that the universe was not created by one big bang, but in actual fact, an infinite number of "little bangs", or supernovae with black hole potential, then it becomes entirely possible that the universe has NO definable age, and that the singularity which created the observable section of the universe is in fact 17 billion years old relative to our position in time.

If we could get our hands on the data that those scientists used to determine the "age" of the universe, and then had a computer determine the RESULTANT VECTOR of all those galaxies' trajectories, and trained every telescope we have on that point in space representing the origin of all those vectors, we would likely find one of the following things:

1) A massive, and I mean, really really really massive galaxy.
2) A massive, and I mean, really really really massive quasar.
3) A massive, and I mean, really really really massive black hole.
4) The "centre" of the virgo supercluster.

1, 2 and 4 are more likely, as a black hole would have the tendancy to pull all of those galaxies backwards toward itself, not fire them off into space. Then again, the ultimate fate of a white hole may in fact be to exert so much gravity that it, itself, will eventually collapse into a black hole again.

So if the universe is infinite in mass and complexity, that means that no matter where you look in space, there is a star somewhere in that direction.

Why then, is the night sky black?

I'll tell you why:

The universe is divided up into eight temporal tetrahedrants (like a quadrant, but it's cubical).

87.5% of the universe occupies seven different temporal tetrahedrants to our own.

This means that 87.5% of the universe is SUCKING UP LIGHT emanating from our tetrahedrant.

That means that we can only *see* our own local section. We cannot *see* 87.5% of the universe no matter how infinite it is.

Just what the h3ll is 87.5% of infinity supposed to be anyway? /ttiforum/images/graemlins/confused.gif

Jeezes Tapdancing Kryptonite, the universe is messed up. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/ooo.gif

What's even weirder is that this 87.5% of the universe that is moving through one of these 7 other tetrahedrants is likely passing RIGHT BY US, exerting gravitational forces and effecting the overall outcome of time in our tetrahedrant.

The reason these things don't smash into us and destroy everything is because the MASS of these things relative to our own position is IMAGINARY... do the math!

m = m0/sqrt(1-(v^2/c^2) <- plug in a value of v > c = 1 = m0

Thus, we don't notice it. A physical object moving along such a temporal trajectory would smash into our imaginary counterparts, upsetting what would otherwise be perfect order. Also, our real masses smash into those other objects' imaginary masses, and have equal and opposite effects. A real and imaginary object will simply pass right through each other and the only noticeable effect would be gravity.

Scientists say that they can't find almost 90% of the universe. 87.5% is pretty darn close.

I think we may have *found* the missing pieces of the universe, folks. And the answer in fact lies in the understanding of time and how transition through different temporal tetrahedrants can in fact, give way to time travel.

I say *found* because although we may not be able to observe these temporal sections of the universe, they are indeed there, and we can indeed observe their effects by measuring gravitational discrepancies. With some study, we might be able to measure the gravitational effects of these d4mn things and actually pinpoint various objects' locations AND measure their speed, even though we can't really *see* them.

Thoughts?

 

[Tempus]

indifference,
Your bug-thing has been explained, but your theory about the canopy of stuff hanging around, but it's not there anymore-that corresponds to the Christian Bible(Noah and the flood-how else would it rain for 40 days and 40 nights?)

And carbon-dating is bogus. You need the *parent* element to determine how old the object is. But you don't know how much of the parent element was originally there. All you have is the daughter element(s)-so you don't know how old the thing is.

And swiftinfo-is it possible for the "star" that the magi saw to have been just that-a star?(going supernova). They "followed" it(parallax) untill they found what the Sciptures prophecied-a baby lying in a feeding trough, wrapped in death clothes, in the City of David.

 

[iridium]

I commend your enthusiasm, but your reasoning is a bit flawed:

To understand how flying insects can be larger in warmer areas, one must understand the principles of flight.

First of all, the warmer the air, the greater the lift. Also, the more humid the air, the greater the lift.

It order for an insect to fly in colder, dryer areas, it does in fact have to be LIGHTER.

Thus, smaller insects will live in cold, dry places and large insects will live in warm, wet places.

HOLY SHNIKIES!!!!!!! I couldn't keep reading after I read this...I just couldn't. Because of this statement, and the autority you tried to convey in making it, I can no long take ANYTHING you say with any sort seriousness. You see, you spoke completely erroneous about something that is physically and easily known, so why would I even give two shakes of a rat's tail about any THEORY you have about origins.

oi. Sorry if I sound contemptuous, but something here needs to be corrected.

Hot humid air DOES NOT PRODUCE MORE LIFT....in fact, it is the opposite. Hot humid air is LESS dense than cold dry air. Look at the make up of cold dry air....lots of o2 which weighs in at a molecular mass of 32. Hot humid air has less o2 and more h2o. h2o has a molecular mass of 18!!!!! it is less dense.

The answer to large bugs is simply that they have a longer "growing season". Bugs are meant to grow in warm climes and go dormant during winters.

I will now attempt to read the rest of this thread, but it will be difficult.