The Paleo Dating Game

Writing to Atlantis Rising via snail mail or email is the best, but not the only, way to make your views known to our readers. There are also “forums” on the Atlantis Rising website: go to www.AtlantisRising.com and select “Discussions.”)

 

Not Siberians

[Regarding “Earliest Americans Not Siberians,” in AR #121 January/February 2017: And they were not even Homo sapiens, if my findings hold up. I was asked to look into a site in Mexico 70 miles east of Mexico City and five miles south of Puebla called Hueyatlaco, at the edge of a reservoir [for more, see Michael Cremo’s column, “Virginia Steen-McIntyre and the Hueyatlaco Saga,” AR #96]. Digs in the 1960s and geologic testing in the 70s yielded some crazy dates for human activity—-at least 250,000 years—-tests by four mutually exclusive methods. What was needed was another dig using more modern ways of dating, so I conducted a dig to do just that. All involved agreed that the most accurate testing method available was the new uranium-thorium-helium method, which yielded dates between 400,000 to 500,000 years. What a shocker! This makes the site far older than Homo sapiens and into the classification of Homo erectus.

That was in 2001; three years later a prominent American archaeologist with a team of Mexican archaeologists accompanied by my team of geologists dug it again. His goal was to disprove my findings. He couldn’t do it. So far there have been eleven attempts to disprove the old dates and we’ve shown all the attempts to be wrong, and some attempts have been very nasty—covering up evidence, lying about data, trying to make it impossible to ever dig there again. Now they’re into number twelve and we’re ready to shred it too. This is the dark side of archaeology.

And the chief opponent told me he doesn’t care about any evidence; he’ll never believe the old dates. Where do you suppose he learned his science?

Marshall Payn, Tampa, FL

 

Younger Dryas

Andrew Collins’ article “Clues to the Great Catastrophe,” in AR #121 suggests that the Younger Dryas event destroyed Atlantis. Mr. Collins is almost certainly correct in suggesting that Atlantis (or part of it) was in the Caribbean—there is no sunken continent, and Atlantis was likely an empire based on many Atlantic and Caribbean islands, with the port cities now submerged. The Younger Dryas event, whether caused by a comet impact, disruption of the ocean’s halide “conveyor belt,” or a sudden decrease in the Sun’s energy output, would have been devastating.

But the Younger Dryas began about 12,900 years ago, and Plato said Atlantis sank 11,600 years ago (from our present time). Geologists believe that much of the sea level rise attending the melting of the Pliestocene ice sheets took place rather rapidly around 11,700 years ago. These dates seem too close to be a coincidence.

I would suggest that Atlantis (and all the civilizations of that time) was severely damaged by the Younger Dryas but survived, and perhaps even partially recovered, only to be finished off when the glaciers melted and submerged the continental shelves.

Pat Alexander, Sacramento, CA 

 

Challenging Einstein

I read the article by Prof. Robbins [“Challenging Einstein”, AR #121]. However, as I illustrate in my book [The God Cipher], starting on page 32 in the third chapter entitled: “Unraveling the Time Traveling Myth,” “The Triplets Paradox” reveals how Relative Simultaneity governs the application of time dilation and length contraction to solve this paradox. Because of Relative Simultaneity, the event of the crossover of the two twins, or triplets, occurs at different times in different frames, and this is what causes the Earth observer (E) to end up reading 10 years as having passed on his clock as the returning traveler, triplet (B), ends up reading only three years as having passed on his clock, which when added to the time passing on A’s clock, equals only 6 years total.

However, the real problem Special Relativity has here can be illustrated if we now attach a shaft to each clock of all three triplets. We let a rope wind around the shaft of each clock to record one year of time passing as one meter of rope is pulled out. This means, that at the end of the experiment as it is described by Special Relativity, the shaft on the Earth triplet’s clock will have 10 meters of rope wrapped around it, meaning that 10 years of time passed in his frame as the experiment took place, whereas only 6 years passed on the two traveler twins’ clocks combined. According to the first postulate of Special Relativity, any inertial observer can claim to be the still frame and is equivalent to all other frames. As you will notice, there are no accelerations in the Triplet’s Paradox.

What we must remember here is that lengths of rope are “real” physical objects meaning that if it took 10 years of time passing to form the 10 meter length of rope on observer E’s clock and 6 years to form the lengths of rope on A’s clock and B’s clock combined, then it is obvious more time passed in E’s still frame than in A’s or B’s still frame when added together since E’s rope is obviously longer. Therefore the E frame is NOT equivalent to either A or B because his length of rope proved that less time actually passed in the Rocket frames clocks combined as compared to his clock.

What this actually reveals here is that, since the different lengths of rope are real physical objects that were formed by the dilated rate at which time passes due to velocity as described by Special Relativity, time dilation must also be physically real since it can directly affect the length the ropes ended up being. Obviously, this means that time dilation is more than just “appearances and measurements,” as described by Special Relativity. It is a real actual physical consequence of motion, as described by Reality Physics, which now explains how we can use it to describe the orbital structure of the Bohr Hydrogen Atom using “the God Cipher paradigm.”

Jeff Lee, Temecula, CA

 

Dr. Robbins Replies to Jeff Lee

What you are terming “the real problem,” which I will characterize as, “If STR is taken to be explaining real effects, it runs into all sorts of physical contradictions,” is entirely compatible with—in fact simply an aspect of—the arguments in my article. I was quite aware of this physical contradiction aspect—Reeves in his Death to Einstein developed another physical contradiction case; I had already developed one in the context of the psychophysics of perception in my The Mists of Special Relativity. What was primarily developed in the article was this:

  1. a) There exists real (ontological) time-retardation effects; STR does not have the logical structure to explain them; i.e., it only explains measurement effects. The implication is the problem above—if you hold STR is indeed explaining real effects, contradictions emerge and can be demonstrated.
  2. b) This implication was developed in a yet larger context, that of “simultaneous causal flows” in the last paragraphs. The example of the tree growth or the storm front harbor physical contradictions, should STR be applied to them. Your rope example is part of the larger case.

One can do only so much in 2500 words. Hiding within the article itself, e.g., in the pole-barn paradox, are enormous contradictions that could have been explored. One simply has to take space to deal with GTR however—this is the absolutely standard, reflex escape from STR’s problems. I could have described an actual physical model, a physical process model, of how “time” retardations (actually, more precisely, slowing down of physical processes as velocity increases) could be explained without relying on Lorentz or STR—I did so in The Mists—there wasn’t space for this in the article.

It would be wonderful to see a letter to AR noting the physical contradictions example as an implication of the article, as yet another aspect of the problem of STR. As it stands, your letter is simply a disservice, casting doubt on the piece, and introducing more confusion in a subject that desperately needs clarification, and in fact never actually coming to grips with or refuting the actual arguments in the piece, particularly how, within the logical, compensatory structure of STR, time-changes can be ontological, length changes only measurement effects?

I presume you might think that somehow the “triplets” argument is in fact a refutation of the article. I am not familiar with this exact argument, and I regret I can’t wait to order your book and wait for the hardcopy (I noticed it in AR and intended to get it). I suspect very much the “triplets” is simply a variant of Wesley Salmon’s argument (“Which Twin has the Timex?”), which I noted in the article, which carries the standard fallacy of the “omniscient observer” who “knows” which twin (triplet?), is moving and which is stationary. In any case, it should be disconcerting to you that you can hold simultaneously that, a) the triplets argument saves the explanatory structure of STR for explaining an actual, real time dilation, b) this same explanatory structure of STR however produces physical contradictions (which is to say, it CANNOT be an explanatory structure), and I’ll throw in, c) and be quite happy that this explanatory structure is supposedly explaining real physical time retardations, while yet applying a measurement effects only explanation to the length changes in the M&M experiment?

Again, a letter noting the physical contradictions aspect would be great. As it stands, the letter is a disservice to the subject.

Steve Robbins, Jackson, WI

 

AR readers will be pleased to learn that Jeff Lee and Dr. Robbins are continuing their dialogue in a venue where there is room to expand at length on their views, Email. —ED

 

Obituary

John Bedini [inventor and alternative energy pioneer] died in early November. He was someone covered in various Atlantis Rising articles. I had just bought his book and CD as a result of an article about him in the fall issue of Atlantis Rising [“The Redemption, of R.R. Rife,” by Jeane Manning, AR #120]. I had just finished watching it in early November. I did not know he had died until yesterday. See obit: https://www.google.com/search?q=John+and+Gary+Bedini&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

Ken McGhee, Arlington, VA

 

Kudos

This is not a question—rather, it is a pat on the back. I ran across your magazine on a newsstand and thought that it looked interesting. I can tell you that never before in my 80 years have I ever read a magazine from cover to cover—then wished there was more to read. I’ll be purchasing every PDF version for the rest of my life. Thank you for such an interesting and diverse collection of information!

Brian Hipper, Queensland, Australia

 

Write to us at Letters to the Editor, Atlantis Rising. Our postal address: P.O. Box 441, Livingston, Montana USA 59047. By e-mail, write to: jdkenyon@atlantisrising.