Did Giant Comet Help Hobbits Reach Flores?

Firstly, it's worth mentioning that the first version of the book was entitled 'The Earth's Shifting Crust'. If Charles Hapgood was alive today he would be jumping for joy at my new theory and shouting "Eureka!".

If you have read 'Mystery In Acambaro' (which I doubt) you would remember that he mentions the find of mammoth remains and suggested human occupation on the island of Santa Rosa off the Californian peninsula, dated to around 40,000 BP. He would put two and two together straight away! He was clearly an advocate of ancient human occupation of the American continent. My landbridge hypothesis from California to North Australia fits like a glove!

I can't wait to hear your assessment of his other work "Maps Of The Ancient Sea Kings", if you've managed to read that as well.

My theory is such a perfect explanation for the mammoths, he would have been overjoyed. Anybody with an affinity for the man would know this.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That's such a poor answer. I can only suggest to any readers with an open mind that they should visit the source data for themselves.

Trippy, would you admit that your knowledge of Hapgood is virtually negligable, and so much less than mine? Of course not. The comments you give are baseless.

I also wish to state that another analytical finding of Hapgood was the connection of certain species of South American fauna having apparent ancestry with species unique to the isolated continent of Australia. He would have been ecstatic with excitement at the proposal of a new Core-Centered Theory of Gravity and a temporary land bridge between the two continents.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It is not a theory. A theory is a solid piece of reasoning, validated by many tests and supported by multiple observations.
It is not a hypothesis. A hypothesis has a sound basis for consideration and a modicum of supporting evidence.
It is not a speculation. A speculation is a free thinking explanation for some observations that elegantly provides a novel insight into a topic.
It is a wild, delusional mind fart.

Your theory predicts nothing. You make some claims of what occured, but you have made no predictions of what evidence might be found to substantiate these claims.

Usually, when people are so ignorant of the processes of science they do not indulge themselves in such nonsense.

You offer no mechanism, or hint of a mechanism as to how a pull on the core would induce convetion currents. Strike one.
Convection currents would increase the amount of heat reaching the surface, not decrease it. Strike 2.
The amount of heat coming from below is sufficient over the course of an entire year to melt a layer of ice 1mm thick. Even if your alleged convection currents could move fast enough (which they cannot, since they are moving in solid rock.) the impact on Earth's surface temperature would not be measurable. Strike 3.
You are out.

You can't qualify an absolute. Why I am I not surprised that you would try.
And no, it does not make any sense at all.

 

I've got the emails from university professors who would disagree. They have been very interested in the idea. Thanks for your views regarding the mechanics of heat transfer to the oceans above the crust. I'll look into it.

 

If that actually true, which I seriously doubt, feel free to post copies of them.

 

I'm not trying to convince you, I'll wait for someone else to see sense.

 

GOOD! Then just go away , play somewhere else and leave the adults alone!!!

 

Start your own thread.

 

On this topic??? You got to be kidding!

Are you starting to get a little tired yet from running all around the different categories posting your nonsensical drivel? I'll sure be glad when you do!

 

Why does science call this(ONE FIND) find a new species? It could easily just be a dwarfish human. They dismiss dozens of giant skeleton(complete or near complete) as gigantism.

 

If you're qualified to talk about evidence then I'm qualified to to be Emperor.

 

The Penguin book "An Introduction To Geology" would disagree. It states that the convection of the mantle caused by the Moon keeps the planet from overheating. You couldn't be more wrong.

References to support my hypothesis of a temporary land bridge between the American continent and Australasia due to a giant comet near-miss pulling on the Earth's inner core of dark matter around 40,000 B.P are:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/430944.stm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Siberian_American_Aborigines

http://www.centerfirstamericans.org/research.php

 

I am going to pretend, for discussion's sake, that you have not misread the Penguin book.
If convection currents reduce the overheating of the planet they do this by carrying heat from the interior to the surface or near surface. This substantiates my point exactly.

You seem to have a genuine problem of understanding the written word. Is English your third language. There is no shame in having difficulties in a foregin language, but their is shame in basing a philosophy on that misuderstanding.

 

Many Emperors have been despotic, ignorant, self-obsessed individuals. So I guess you qualify.

 

I've recently deduced that DM lies at the center of the Earth and the Moon. The giant comet would therfore also contain DM, and account for the huge pull on the Earth's core necessary for the flexure of the lithosphere by over 6km.

For posterity, I have calculated the period of the comet to be 37,000 years, based on the sediment core work of Bond & Lotti in the north Atlantic. (Another story)

 

Again, just for posterity, I have realised that the most likely direction of my proposed giant NEO is south to north. Therefore the object would have crossed from Australasia over the Pacific Ocean, over California and finally over northern Siberia. The reason for this is the sudden uplift and entombing of the Mammoths by liquefaction. The approach of the NEO to the southern hemisphere would have meant a more gradual uplift, giving more warning and less intense earthquakes. Very intense earthquakes would be necessary for extensive landmass liquefaction.

I have estimated the object to be at least half Moon sized and probably closer to the size of the whole Moon. This is necessary to create the 6km+ crustal uplift. The claim of an orbital period of around 37,000 years is tentative, but would coincide with the Babylonian inscription of a great comet of 1140 B.C. "A comet arose whose body was bright like the day, while from its luminous body a tail extended, like the sting of a scorpion."

The earlier speculation of convection currents induced by the gravitational pull on the inner core is not necessary to explain periods of warming and cooling. For the main hypothesis, the matter of the inner core only needs to be considered as being of a lower entropy form compared to 'normal' baryonic matter. It therefore doesn't need to be labeled as dark matter.

N.B: "In 2005, a research team in England announced the discovery of hundreds of human footprints in a stone quarry south of Puebla, Mexico. These human footprints were within a volcanic tuff known as the Xalnene. The English team reported that the footprints were over 40,000 years old." http://www.centerfirstamericans.org/research.php (scroll down for photograph of footprints) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/430944.stm