PAGE STATUS: This page is a recent invention, a collections of notes that were consolidated from many other pages. I have yet to write it in the sense that I have never sat down with the intent of finishing any of the three parts.
LAST UPDATE: January 28, 2021
Rasmus Nyerup (Danish antiquarian)
How important is this subject?
Many individuals within the fields of comparative mythology and the electric universe believe “Let there be light” from the opening of Genesis is a reference to when Proto-Saturn exploded. We celebrate this event as Christmas. The Romans before us celebrated it as Saturnalia. So yea, it’s important. Wallace Thornhill defines “Proto-Saturn” as a brown dwarf star “before it became a gas giant planet in the solar system” (see 0:48 minutes into “Wal Thornhill: The Star ‘Proto-Saturn’ | EU Workshop” from the ThunderboltsProject YouTube channel). This explosion marks that transition. I began this quest over six years ago. My goal then was to write a book entitled “3200 BC.” Overlooking the fact that I was off by 100 years, I wanted nothing more from the remainder of my time on this dreary planet than to know what happened then. Along the way I became keenly aware of 9500 BC, especially after reading Cataclysm!: Compelling Evidence of a Cosmic Catastrophe in 9500 B.C. by D. S. Allan and J. B. Delair. The world was almost totally destroyed and nobody knows for sure why.
I became mystified that no one in the field of comparative mythology or within the electric universe school of thought was even considering the possibility that the explosion of Proto-Saturn was responsible for what happened in 9500 BC.
Jno Cook and others within the field of comparative mythology think this happened in a timeframe that I generically refer to as 3100 BC, but there are dissenting opinions within The Thunderbolts Project™ and Electric Universe camps. Obviously, mainstream science and academia are useless in answering this profoundly important question. Uniformitarianism (or gradualism) does not recognize the reality of the polar configuration of the planets. The wild temperature fluctuations during the Younger Dryas and the ice age (energy) paradox in particular at first seem to be a natural fit, but electromagnetic reconfigurations of small metal balls in plasma science laboratories suggest that such reconfigurations happen rapidly, not over thousands of years.
PART I. CALENDARS
The 700 Missing Years in the First Millennium of the Common Era
This section is going to upset your day. You know those “ancient” Roman ruins that seem to be in remarkably good shape, such as the Arch of Titus that celebrated the Siege of Jerusalem in 70 AD? Well, the Romans used a superior concrete to be sure, but those structures may also be 700 years newer than you thought. That’s right. There may be 660 to 700 years (depending on your source) added to the first millennium timeline. I’m laughing as I write this because I remember how preposterous that sounded to even me when I first heard this. In fact, I totally dismissed it when I first encountered a research paper suggesting there was 660 years missing from the AD. But then I came across this YouTube video:
TITLE: Gunnar Heinsohn – Toronto conference 2016
CHANNEL: Planet Amnesia
POSTED: May 28, 2017
VIEWS: 17,536 views as of January 28, 2021
Here is a link to the original research paper I encountered. Luckily, after watching the above video I was able to find a link to it in my browser history. Honestly, I thought this guy was nuts at first.
The chronology of the world history is suffering from the missing ~660 years because the faithful Christian historians have blindly believed the historicity of the epoch of 1 AD and distorted the chronology of entire world. I have proven in this e-book that the epoch of 1 AD is just a fictitious astronomical epoch because Annianus of Alexandria simply stated that eleven cycles of 532 years (Paschal cycle) have been completed on 1 AD which has been used as an epoch by Dionysus Exiguus to calculate easter tables. Christians started believing from the 10th and 11th centuries that Jesus Christ was born around 1 AD due to gross ignorance of the chronology.
Modern research on the chronological history of the Western civilisations began in the 17th century. James Ussher, the Archbishop of Ireland, has proposed the Biblical chronology starting from the date of creation in 4004 BC. This Ussher chronology faithfully considers the date of Jesus’ birth in 1 AD. Issac Newton wrote “The Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms” in 1728 under the hypnotic influence of the Ussher chronology. Newton, a faithful scientist, was the first historian who drastically revised the timelines of various ancient civilisations. He contracted the Greek chronology by six hundred years and the Egyptian chronology by thousand years. Though he promoted the rational and radical approach in solving the chronological problems in history but utterly failed to apply the same approach to verify the Ussher chronology due his blind faith in the epoch of 1 AD. All western historians and their followers tirelessly worked on to establish the rational chronology of the world history since last 300 years but unfortunately, all of them could not get rid of the hypnotic influence of the Christian chronology. This is the reason why numerous chronological inconsistencies still persist in the world history. There is a serious need to dehypnotize the world historians from the Christian chronology so that we can truly establish a rational and secular chronology of the world.
11th Dec 2016
What is happening here? It would appear as is the Jews removed 650 years of history and the Christians replaced them.
This is going to take a lot of explanation, but I think the progeny of Jove went to great length to correct our calendar system. You will be asking why and objecting to the answer because of the level of effort involved. The first thing I would say is that this is the same people who made sure the Bible has 216 x 144 = 31,104 verses. They are consummate, brilliant planners. I have no doubts that they could do it. The question is Why? And this requires some in depth explanation about the progeny of Jove. I have touched on this elsewhere when I expressed my belief that the GMT correlation date is correct.
FINISH THIS DISCUSSION OF NO TAMPERING WITH THINGS LIKE THE CALENDAR BECAUSE IT COULD RESUTL IN A TOTAL LOSS OF THE KNOWLEDGE
Please note that the following YouTube video was privatized. What you are looking at below is a copy.
Example #1 of why not even written records are reliable for dating events prior to 2600 BC
The Biblical Deluge (650 years off)
This YouTube video “Were the Pyramids Built Before the Flood? (Masoretic Text vs. Original Hebrew)” by Nathan Hoffman (NathanH83 channel on YouTube) is utterly amazing. I admire this guy to no end. To summarize this video, the date of the biblical Deluge was encoded into the genealogies in Genesis, much as James Ussher thought regarding the “creation” date, only the text has been deliberately and very substantially modified by an entrenched Jewish political leadership determined to prove to the rank-in-file that Jesus could not possibly be the promised Messiah, or so we are told. In the section entitled There are three main factions on page № 10. Who are the progeny of Jove?, I speculate at length that this change to the Hebrew Bible (or Tanakh) was made by the progeny of Jove.
TITLE: Were the Pyramids Built Before the Flood? (Masoretic Text vs. Original Hebrew);
POSTED: May 28, 2017
VIEWS: 1,338,347 views as of January 28, 2021
I regard the Old Testament as primarily a record of world cataclysms. If this is so, providing us with a date of the last major world catastrophe would be an essential part of the text. It was there. It was taken out. By adding back the missing 650 years, the Old Testament is telling us that the biblical Deluge occurred around 3000 BC. This more or less agrees with both the Maya Long Count (3105 BC according to my work) and the start of the Yuga calendar of India (3105 BC according to Christian Irigaray).
The Belief in the 2350 BC is Very Old
As Nathan Hoffman points out in his video from the previous section, every Christian Bible in existence is translated from the Masoretic Text and therefore includes this 650-year mistake. This, of course, includes the 1611 King James Version (KJV) of the Bible. That means this change the Jewish scribe made in order to prove that Christ Jesus could not be the promised Messiah has inadvertently distorted the entire history of Christendom. The following excerpt is from a National Geographic article.
According to the Book of Genesis: “In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.”
Whiston argued that a comet passing close to Earth could explain these phenomena. The gravitational pull of the comet, he said, fractured the planet’s crust. And the vaporous tail of the comet saturated the upper atmosphere with excess water, which lead to a cataclysmic rainfall.
The weight of the rainfall combined with tidal forces caused water beneath the surface of Earth to flow forth and wreak havoc.
Whiston dedicated his book to Newton, who endorsed the theories as plausible and reasonable.
NationalGeographic.com, Why Newton Believed a Comet Caused Noah’s Flood [emphasis added].
Immanuel Velikovsky speaks highly of Whiston in his paper entitled William Whiston and the Deluge, but says nothing about the 2342 BC date being wrong.
Did George Dodwell make the same mistake?
Example #2 of why not even written records are reliable for dating events prior to 2600 BC
The Exodus (200 years off)
In it, he references the award winning documentary “Patterns of Evidence: The Exodus” by
TITLE: How Long Were The Israelites In Egypt?
POSTED: September 16, 2015
VIEWS: 196,429 views as of January 28, 2021
George Dodwell’s Study of Gnomon Measurements (500 years off)
How Long was Venus a Comet? If Dodwell’s work is reliable and the first section of the Temple of Karnak was built in 2045 BC, then we can subtract 1495 from this value and arrive at 550 years at a minimum. But it would have been longer because the temple is adorned with headdresses figured after the comet Venus.
Ankhsunamun’s ‘comet’ crown on the back of Tutankhamun’s throne.
Thunrderbolts.ino, Velikovsky’s Comet Venus, Gary Gilligan
This prominence of the comet crown for 900 years suggest the Venus was a comet for much longer the 550 years. Wikipedia says, “Major construction work in the Precinct of Amun-Re took place during the Eighteenth dynasty when Thebes became the capital of the unified Ancient Egypt.” The Eighteenth dynasty is the start of the New Kingdom, which generally is dated to 1550 BC.
The makes the discrepancy between Dodwell and mainstream Egyptologist about (2045-1550=) about 500 years. Where have we heard this before?
Immanuel Velikovsy’s missing 500 years
Velikovsky missing years
PART II. ICE CORE TEMPERATURE RECORDS
Prerequisite Page: № 35. 9500 BC, The Birth of Venus
Ice Core Drilling in Antarctica (EPICA and Vostok)
Ice cores are primarily from either Greenland or Antarctica. The Greenland ice cores do not date back nearly as far as do those from Antarctica. The oldest Greenland ice cores are estimated to date back to only the last interglacial some 123,000 years ago. Besides this lack of data, if Greenland was north-facing (as was, of course, the entire Northern Hemisphere) during the prolonged breakup of the polar configuration of the planets at the end of the last world, Greenland ice core temperature data would be highly suspect. Why? Because the historical record bears out that earth was pelted with debris when Proto-Saturn exploded. Therefore the ice core temperature data used on this page is from either the European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica (EPICA) or the Russian Vostok Station. At this point in history, I really do not trust any weather-related data from the United States of America. The Vostok Station “is by far the coldest spot on earth.” The ice cores from there cover 420,000 years. The history of ice core drilling at the Vostok Station is an interesting read.
In the 1970s the Soviet Union drilled a set of cores 500–952 m deep. These have been used to study the oxygen isotope composition of the ice, which showed that ice of the last glacial period was present below about 400 meters’ depth. Then three more holes were drilled: in 1984, Hole 3G reached a final depth of 2202 m; in 1990, Hole 4G reached a final depth of 2546 m; and in 1993 Hole 5G reached a depth of 2755 m; after a brief closure, drilling continued during the winter of 1995. In 1996 it was stopped at depth 3623 m, by the request of the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research that expressed worries about possible contamination of Lake Vostok. This ice core, drilled collaboratively with the French, produced a record of past environmental conditions stretching back 420,000 years and covering four previous glacial periods. For a long time it was the only core to cover several glacial cycles; but in 2004 it was exceeded by the EPICA core which, whilst shallower, covers a longer time span.
The ice cores from EPICA are estimated to go back 740,000 years spanning a total of eight glacial periods. The correspondence of this temperature data suggests that it is reliable, though limited to a relatively small geographical area of the planet. EPICA and the Vostok Station are only separated by some 560 kilometers (348 miles).
Here is a comparison of the temperature data:
The δD symbol stands for “delta deuterium,” which is a temperature proxy. The more negative the value, the lower the temperature. You can read about delta deuterium at “Ice core basics” on the AntarcticaGlaciers.org website.
The bottom chart, “δD versus depth” is difficult to read. I need to explain it because I refer back to it below in another section. Both charts are showing all of the ice core data. In other words, the red and green lines are the same on both charts. The difference is that on the bottom chart the left end of each line is stretched out and the rest of the line is progressively compressed, kind of like playing the accordion. What the bottom chart is showing you is that although the EPICA cores are estimated to be 740,000 years old compared to 420,000 years for the Vostok cores, the Europeans did not drill as deep as the Russians. In other words, the ice in the EPICA core is more or less twice as compressed as the ice in the Vostok core. It is also showing you that the deeper the ice, the more compressed it is. Carefully compare the two charts and you will see that the entire left-hand side of the bottom chart represents only about 120,000 years. This makes sense if you think about it for a minute. The snow turns into ice as a result of compaction, and the ice compresses more and more over time.
What Interrupted the Current Interglacial?
The current interglacial is only one and a half to a little over three degrees centigrade less than the previous four interglacial periods. Can this be rightly be characterized as an “interruption” in the temperature record? Well, the difference in temperature over the past 740,000 years from the lowest recorded temperatures to the highest record temperatures is only twelve degrees centigrade. This is the very basis for my argument that Proto-Saturn and earth were not “captured” by the Sun. Even at one and a half degrees, that is 12.5% of the total temperature swing in that vast period of time, so I think the word “interruption” is reasonable.
cut from elsewhere
The temperature data suggests that we are at the end of the Holocene interglacial.
An interglacial optimum, or climatic optimum of an interglacial, is the period within an interglacial that experienced the most ‘favourable’ climate that occurred during that interglacial, often during the middle part. The climatic optimum of an interglacial follows, and is followed by, phases that are within the same interglacial and that experienced a less favourable climate (but nevertheless a ‘better’ climate than during the preceding/succeeding glacials). During an interglacial optimum, sea levels rise to their highest values, but not necessarily exactly at the same time as the climatic optimum.
In the present interglacial, the Holocene, the climatic optimum occurred during the Subboreal (5 to 2.5 ka BP, which corresponds to 3000 BC-500 BC) and Atlanticum (9 to 5 ka, which corresponds to roughly 7000 BC-3000 BC). Our current climatic phase following this climatic optimum is still within the same interglacial (the Holocene). This warm period was followed by a gradual decline until about 2,000 years ago, with another warm period until the Little Ice Age(1250-1850).
PART III. RADIOCARBON DATING
Radiocarbon Dating is Infused with Uniformitarian Assumptions
Radiometric dating is infused with uniformitarian assumptions. Both are lies. Radiocarbon dating into the distant past is nothing less than delusional. Nevertheless, it is profoundly important that we know when Proto-Saturn exploded. I no longer feel that I should attempt to divine or intuit the answer for the reader, only provide the answers for and against the two obvious dates, 9500 BC and 3100 BC
Immanuel Velikovsky on “The Pitfalls of Radiocarbon Dating”
Immanuel Velikovsky has written an article on this subject in which he states:
A. Of the three reservoirs of radiocarbon on earth—the atmosphere, the biosphere, and the hydrosphere, the richest is the last—the oceans with the seas. The correctness of the method depends greatly on the condition that in the last 40 or 50 thousand years the quantity of water in the hydrosphere (and carbon diluted in it) has not substantially changed. :
B. The method depends also on the condition that during the same period of time the influx of cosmic rays or energy particles coming from the stars and the sun has not suffered substantial variations.
VArchive.org, The Pitfalls of Radiocarbon Dating, Immanuel Velikovsky
Well, the oceans may have been formed when Proto-Saturn exploded. And there is no chance whatsoever that either solar particle events (SPE or solar cosmic rays) or galactic cosmic rays (GCR) have “not suffered substantial variations.” None.
An Overview of Radiocarbon Dating from Mainstream Science
For an overview of the radiocarbon dating written by one of the disciples of uniformitarianism see:
Wikipedia Radiocarbon dating
TITLE: Dating – the Radiocarbon Way;
CHANNEL: GNS Science;
POSTED: March 12, 2010
VIEWS: 56,102 views as of January 28, 2021
It’s madness. They speak of different “effects” (minor imperfections in the methodology) when in truth it’s just madness. Mainstream science and academia are mathematically insane. The problem with these people is the same problem that pervades all of mainstream science and academia; they make a living radiocarbon dating. To suggest that it is meaningless not only jeopardizes their income, but it also collapses their reality.
Proto-Saturn exploding and earth outside of Proto-Saturn’s magnetosphere are the two elephants in this room. They are like taking a wrecking ball to the delicate equipment used in radiocarbon dating.
Here is an overview of C14 dating.
C14Dating.com, The 14C Method, Thomas Higham
Radiocarbon Dating to Before March 23, 687 BC
March 23, 687 BC is believed to be the last time Mars was close to Earth, though the consequences of this last encounter were not as drastic as those of 747 BC when the length of the year changed. After this date, there are no more close encounters with Earth. The solar system eventually settles down to the state that it is in now. Prior to this, however, Venus ravaged the planet and before that Proto-Saturn exploded. If Proto-Saturn’s explosion rained plasma down on earth, what are the implications for carbon dating prior to this event? And if carbon dating is rendered completely meaningless as a result of Proto-Saturn exploding, the comet Venus, and Mars by what other means do we arrive at the date 9500 BC? The “calibration” of radiocarbon dating can imagine only “two types of variation from the straight line: a long-term fluctuation with a period of about 9,000 years, and a shorter term variation, often referred to as ‘wiggles’, with a period of decades.” I am greatly troubled by their use of the term “wiggle.”
As with all things mainstream, there is no allowance for such an extreme event as Proto-Saturn exploding. Of course, this means the 9500 BC may be entirely fallacious. Why? Of the three naturally occurring isotopes of carbon on Earth, only one of them is radioactive. That is the Carbon-14 isotope. In other words, Carbon-14 and “radiocarbon” are two terms for the same thing.
The primary natural source of carbon-14 on Earth is cosmic ray action on nitrogen in the atmosphere, and it is therefore a cosmogenic nuclide. However, open-air nuclear testing between 1955–1980 contributed to this pool.
Wikipedia, Carbon 14 [emphasis added]
Cosmogenic nuclides (or cosmogenic isotopes) are rare nuclides (isotopes) created when a high-energy cosmic ray interacts with the nucleus of an in situ Solar System atom, causing nucleons (protons and neutrons) to be expelled from the atom.
Wikipedia, Cosmogenic nuclide [emphasis added]
In recent years I have chanced to read the view of Josif Shklovsky, a Russian astrophysicist, that a nova would be a source of cosmic rays even thousands of years after the explosion. Shklovsky and his collaborators offered the suggestion that at some past time the earth, or the entire solar system, passed through clouds of cosmic rays, resulting from a nova star, that caused the extinction of various forms of life on earth, dinosaurs and others. This thought found an echo in me because the same thoughts had been put on paper by me two decades earlier. But their assumption that cosmic rays may be discharged by a nova thousands of years after the explosion led me to think that if such is the case, Saturm may still emit cosmic rays, if, by now, only of low energy. Therefore when asked at some college gatherings what new “prediction” I would make, and desirous to tell something that in case of detection could not be ascribed to a lucky guess, I volunteered to suggest that there is a good chance that Saturn emits low energy cosmic rays. This on the assumption that the Russians were right in saying that a nova would still be sending out such radiation after so long a period.
So if the above-ground nuclear tests (gnats compared to Proto-Saturn exploding) known as “the bomb spike” is something that must be taken into consideration when radiocarbon dating, imagine what a brown dwarf parked next door to earth would do were it to go nova. But Proto-Saturn exploding is not the only overlooked elephant in this room. (Know problems with radiocarbon dating such as the “Suess effect” from the burning of “fossil” fuels are not considered here because they are trivial in comparison.)
Here are the last four paragraphs (the conclusion) from “How Long Ago?” written by Stephen Smith and dated June 23, 2009:
One of the most basic assumptions in the development of an accurate “calendar” by which events could be dated was that the Earth is an isolated celestial body that does not interact with other bodies. Another assumption is that radioactive decay rates are constant, Earth’s energy cycle has received no additional input since the radioactive elements were formed, or no alteration to its electrical or magnetic fields have taken place. That means geologists can “rely on” a smooth, continuous clock ticking off the millennia at a measurable rate. Is that the case, however? Is there evidence that the radiometric dating methods that scientists use with such confidence can change?
Cosmic rays or electrical discharges could increase the percentages of C-14 (“radiocarbon”) in living organisms. If the remains of those organisms were dated using the standard radiocarbon ratios, they would appear to be much younger than they are, or much closer to the present era than they should be.
Conversely, if an increase in radioactively neutral carbon isotope were to accumulate in our biosphere from burning forests, from cosmic dust, or from extensive volcanic eruptions, anything dated following whichever particular cause would appear much older. No definite timeline can be constructed using the dating methods traditionally thought to produce accurate results.
It seems possible that plasma interactions with Earth and other charged bodies in space, or the impact of ion beams from a vast cloud of plasma on our biosphere could disrupt all the elemental changes that are used to date rocks: uranium changing to lead; potassium changing to argon; or samarium changing to neodymium. Therefore, the Earth could be much younger than the billions of years commonly ascribed to it. It is equally possible that it is much older than is thought. Until some radical new discovery is made, no one can be sure.
This two-part article is a MUST READ if you think radiometric dating is anything other than quackery for dates before March 23, 687 BC
As discussed on the Defining Exactly Who are the Progeny of Jove page, 2600 BC is the latest possible date for the creation of the progeny of Jove precisely because the solar system has not changed since then. But even these dates are highly suspect.
In dating of ancient Egyptian objects, C14 dates which do not conform with the accepted chronology are discarded as contaminated and not published, those that do, are published. This is hardly good science. Since there is no means of determining what is contaminated and what is not, other than its’ support of the accepted chronological scheme, it amounts to nothing more than circular reasoning. Ginenthal (p163) quotes a Harvard professor:
“If a C14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in the footnote. And if it is completely ‘out of date’, we just drop it.”
As an example of this, Ginenthal cites the results of a test performed by the British Museum on palm kernels and mat reed from the tomb of Tutankhamon, who supposedly lived in the 14th C BCE. The results were 899 BCE and 846 BCE, a discrepency of almost 500 years. Those dates were never published.
Thunderbolts.info, C14 dating
This text is extracted from another MUST READ discussion forum on “C14 dating” from the thunderbolts.info website.
There is a wealth of information in this thread.
It is written by catastrophists who know that radiocarbon dating is worse than useless because it is being selectively used to confirm preconceived notions about our past.
Changes in the Decay Rate
The following picture and article are from thunderbolts.info website:
Antarctic Fossil Questions
There’s a petrified forest in Antarctica peeking through perpetual snow where today nothing bigger than bacteria grows. The trees resemble today’s Christmas trees, but instead of needles they had leaves (see photo) The trees grew thickly (a thousand or more per acre) and tall (up to 80 feet). They are dated late Permian, 260 million years ago, one of many times when Earth appears to be have been much warmer than today.
From a catastrophist point of view, there are many questions raised by the Antarctic forest. How accurate is the system by which the trees were dated? Was late Permian really 260 million years ago? Geologists consider this figure accurate, along with the “known” age of the Earth. And it’s all backed by absolute radiometric dating techniques. Fifty years ago, they were equally confident of a different age, and another age fifty years before that. But this time they’re sure they’ve got it right.
Two of the basic assumptions on which radiometric dating is based are that the Earth is an isolated body in space unaffected by interactions with other bodies and that the decay constant is a constant. No matter what, no matter where, the half-life of a particular radioactive isotope remains the same.
Catastrophists, who collect evidence that the Earth has been subjected to discontinuous and disruptive events, are quick to point out the flaws in radiometric dating results. A search of Ian Tresman’s Catastrophism CD on-line (see link below) will generate 101 different references to radiometric dating in catastrophist literature. Most of these articles are about anomalies in radiometric dating and how they are explained away by those who accept the conventional dating without question. Others refer to research showing that changing electric fields can change the decay rate.
In addition, Russian researchers S. E. Schnoll, et al, have been studying the effects of celestial cycles on the decay constant for over 30 years. They document changes in the decay constant and in chemical reaction rates that correlate with moonrise/moonset, eclipses, the sidereal and synodic day, the year, and the sunspot cycle.
Each of these cycles shows that the decay rate is connected to something. From an Electric Universe point of view, that something is probably electric currents in space. The synodic day variations (sunrise to sunrise) would correlate to the Sun’s electric currents, while the sidereal day variations (from star-rise to star-rise, just under four minutes shorter than the synodic day) would correlate to something from beyond the solar system, such as the galactic electric currents.
Schnoll, et al, document that solar activity affects the decay rate of Plutonium239. This activity peaks when there are active solar flares or CME’s. The decay rate spike occurs immediately after the solar activity, or 2 to 3 days before the solar wind arrives to change the Earth’s geomagnetic field. This may mean that the cause of the changed decay rate arrives at Earth at the speed of light (or faster). Or it may mean that both the changes in decay rate and the solar activity have a common cause in galactic-scale electric currents.
If catastrophic changes to the solar system have occurred, then radio decay constants have changed. If the plasma discharge phenomena we call the thunderbolts of the gods actually flew between Earth and other planets, this too would have changed the radio decay constant (as well as the abundances of radioisotopes). In any case, the whole question of absolute dating must be re-evaluated from an electric universe point of view.
Thunderbolts.info, Antarctic Fossil Questions
TITLE: Peter Mungo Jupp: Instant Fossilization | EU2017
POSTED: October 20, 2018
VIEWS: 39,690 views as of January 28, 2021
Written records questionable even in “ancient” Egypt
stratigraphy (relative dating)