Volcanoes, Earthquakes And The 3,600 Year Comet Cycle

I forgot to put an hyperlink to the Wikipedia "1808 mystery eruption" which is where the three candidates are mentioned. The Tall volcano is spelled this way, it is indeed located in the Philippines. I've added the link just now.

Thank you for your answer Pierre, however, the Taal is spelled "Taal":
In 1808 there were major eruptions in Urzelina, Azores in May (1st to 4th), and in Taal Volcano, Philippines in March.[8] Neither of these occurred within the correct time period for the visual observations.


I don't think you have to add explanations since the Wikipedia entry is quite explicit by providing the date of each of the three eruptions.

As this Wikipedia entry does not exist in French, I thought it would be great to provide the date of each ones in a comment.
 
MKS said:
Thank you for your answer Pierre, however, the Taal is spelled "Taal":

My bad. I corrected the spelling in the original article.

MKS said:
As this Wikipedia entry does not exist in French, I thought it would be great to provide the date of each ones in a comment.

If there's no entry in the French Wikipedia, it's better to add your explanations. With all your improvements, the article in French will end up better than the article in English!
 
My bad. I corrected the spelling in the original article.

If there's no entry in the French Wikipedia, it's better to add your explanations. With all your improvements, the article in French will end up better than the article in English!

Well, I've just finished the translation and I currently am doing a last proofreading before to publish it on tomorrow or on Saturday.
It was a real pleasure to learn about all this stuff around this cometary cycle, so thank you again for all your work.

I don't know if the French version will be better, I just consider the lack of datas available in French (it's an understatement!) and try to make the translation as exhaustive as it can be (or as I can do) to give the will to readers to maybe go further and make their own extra investigations. That's why I adapted the numerous diagrams in French - as wrote previously in editors and translators Groups - because reading them (part of) is not an easy thing in itself, and might discourage their understanding if in another language. I myself did not know nor understand some of them before to do so.

And if (as I read it in one of your comment under the original Focus) this article (and the two previous ones) is about to be part of a next book, these French diagrams could be useful.
 
Possible presence of a ninth planet (Planet X) causing gravitational perturbations on Trans-Neptunian objects and its period at about 3,500 years showed:

The Orbit of Planet Nine Derived from Engineering Physics

Robert Finch, Mattia A. Galiazzo
(Submitted on 24 Jan 2020)
Several papers have recently suggested the possible presence of a ninth planet (Planet X) that might explain the gravitational perturbations of a number of detached Trans-Neptunian objects. To analyze the possibility further, we have applied celestial mechanics, engineering physics and statistical analysis to develop improved estimates of the planet's primary orbital elements and mass from first engineering principles, using the orbital characteristics of both the original group of 6 objects analyzed and also a second group comprising the original 6 together with 6 additional long-period asteroids selected by the authors. We show that the driving force behind the observed clustering is gravitational torque that arranges the orbits of asteroids in a systematic, orderly manner, and we develop the associated equations of motion. As evidence we show that the expected effects are fully apparent in the orbital characteristics of the correlated bodies involved, including most strikingly regarding their orbital planes, azimuth orientations and specific relative angular momenta, which we show generates a highly unexpected form of resonance in their relative angular momenta. We further show that the coordinates of Planet 9's orbit are close to the original values proposed recently by other authors, although we prove that its period has to be dramatically smaller than that proposed in recent literature by Batygin and Brown, 2019, at about 3500 yrs, the eccentricity is near 0.65, and its mass approximately 8.4 times the Earth's mass. Given the predicted orbit we show that the planet has apparently created numerous mean motion resonances, of which seven are noted specifically. As for a possible observation, Planet X, would range between V=18.9 and 26.1, probably with a magnitude of about 24.8.
 
I've started to read the article now for the first time while translating and right from the start there is something that peaked my interest and I guess is also one of the reasons Pierre got interested into looking into that possible cycle more closely.

The 14,400 BP event, which by the looks of it, was even more severe than the two following ones (at least in terms of temperature drop) is dead on the timeframe the C's gave us for the comet cluster cycle of about 3600 years. And I mean, dead on...

Here is a short list I wrote down a while ago in order to pay closer attention to information in and around those dates that might pop up in the scientific literature in terms of cataclysmic events and such. It is the 3600 years comet-cluster-cycle the C's suggested bombards earth dated back from the year 2012:

- 3,600 years BP (1,588 years B.C.)
- 7,200 years BP (5,188 years B.C.)
- 10,800 years BP (8,788 years B.C.)
- 14,400 years BP (12,388 years B.C.)
- 18,000 years BP (15,988 years B.C.)
- 21,600 years BP (19,588 years B.C.)

So, if we assume that the big drop we can see in the temperature record for the 14,400 year BP event has been primarily caused by the comet cluster the C's talked about, that raises a number of pretty interesting questions. We notice that the two following ones that preceded the younger drayas period (and are by now strongly associated with harsh global cosmic events) don't fit within that cycle the C's suggested. That raises the big question if those events actually happened pretty much in the cycle the C's suggested, but that the accuracy of dating got seriously screwed up? If the 14.400 event is indeed the event the C's suggested, it could potentially be used as an anker point to calibrate/correct dates of events afterwards in some way?

Also, if the 14,400 BP event is the event the C's talk about, the question arises how exactly it is possible that this date is dead on in terms of dating while the following (and maybe the previous) events seems to be off quite some margin in terms of dating? All pretty interesting thoughts to think about that could help us figure out more precisely what might have happened and how exactly timeframes got mixed up (or moved in time) and how to maybe readjust them to reflect what actually happened on which point.

Will read on now in Pierres article.
 
Here is a short list I wrote down a while ago in order to pay closer attention to information in and around those dates that might pop up in the scientific literature in terms of cataclysmic events and such. It is the 3600 years comet-cluster-cycle the C's suggested bombards earth dated back from the year 2012:

- 3,600 years BP (1,588 years B.C.)
- 7,200 years BP (5,188 years B.C.)
- 10,800 years BP (8,788 years B.C.)
- 14,400 years BP (12,388 years B.C.)
- 18,000 years BP (15,988 years B.C.)
- 21,600 years BP (19,588 years B.C.)

So, if we assume that the big drop we can see in the temperature record for the 14,400 year BP event has been primarily caused by the comet cluster the C's talked about, that raises a number of pretty interesting questions. We notice that the two following ones that preceded the younger drayas period (and are by now strongly associated with harsh global cosmic events) don't fit within that cycle the C's suggested. That raises the big question if those events actually happened pretty much in the cycle the C's suggested, but that the accuracy of dating got seriously screwed up? If the 14.400 event is indeed the event the C's suggested, it could potentially be used as an anker point to calibrate/correct dates of events afterwards in some way?

Also, if the 14,400 BP event is the event the C's talk about, the question arises how exactly it is possible that this date is dead on in terms of dating while the following (and maybe the previous) events seems to be off quite some margin in terms of dating? All pretty interesting thoughts to think about that could help us figure out more precisely what might have happened and how exactly timeframes got mixed up (or moved in time) and how to maybe readjust them to reflect what actually happened on which point.


There's obviously nothing wrong with the theory in general.

But what about the "missing centuries"? This problem with time reckoning can make you go haywire...
Let's suppose that "2012" was really something like 1712 that would put the 10,800 BP event at 9088 BC.

When Platon mentions the demise of Atlantis at 9,000 years before the time of Solon though, "in a single day and night of misfortune" (written in 360 BC) it should have been published in 2,380 BP (counting from 2020) - but was it?

So when Atlantis perished 9,000 years before Solon (his heyday being around 600 BC) the figure 9,000 would be correct but Solon's time would fit in between 2,200 and 2,300 BP and "the end of Atlantis" around 11,000 BP and then some.

Converting these BP figures into our habitual BC time reckoning is probably just a game because there are serious doubts that we're even living in 2020...

Playing the game Solon's "end of Atlantis" would come in nicely at 8,980 BC which would be very close to the 10,800 BP/9,088 BC event mentioned earlier.

At the end of the day there is reason to believe that the demise of Atlantis and a cyclical cataclysmic event came close together...
 
ut what about the "missing centuries"? This problem with time reckoning can make you go haywire...
Let's suppose that "2012" was really something like 1712 that would put the 10,800 BP event at 9088 BC
I know it is only an example, but 2012 - 1712 is 300 years. So this would make the 10,800BP event 10,500BP. You seem to be working with a 1,712 year time difference (10,800 - 9,088)
 
I know it is only an example, but 2012 - 1712 is 300 years. So this would make the 10,800BP event 10,500BP. You seem to be working with a 1,712 year time difference (10,800 - 9,088)

Yes, if 2012 would have been 1712 the 10,800BP/9,088BC event mentioned by Pashalis it would turn into 10,500BP/8,788BC. I told you I was going haywire... :whistle:
 
Wow, Pierre, that article looks like it was a lot of work and effort. Thank you for compiling the information.

Finally got to reading this article. Got about half way through and came across a confusing graph. I think there's a mis-placement of your pointer arrow in Taylor Dome NO3 (A) graph. If it's suppose to be marking 10800BP, it should be moved to the left ~600 years.

NO3_belukha_tayor_dome10800_BP.jpg

This would also change the description that follows, where you write: The spike in Belukha (+15 ppb) is more pronounced than in Taylor Dome (+ 6 ppb). Should be closer to 30+ ppb? Not sure which spikes you are measuring from, maybe the ppb change is higher, it's a pretty big spike!

Back to reading article....
 
There's obviously nothing wrong with the theory in general.
But what about the "missing centuries"?
[...]
Converting these BP figures into our habitual BC time reckoning is probably just a game because there are serious doubts that we're even living in 2020...

anartist said:
So this would make the 10,800BP event 10,500BP

I think that using BP timelines circumvents the missing centuries issue to some extent. Ice cores and similar techniques count yearly layers from present (among other calibrating approach). Say, ice cores reveal that Caesar's comet passed nearby 1,664 years ago (1,664 BP), that is 1,664 yearly layers ago, the missing centuries, whatever their number, don't affect the BP dating. It's only when we convert into the BC/AD timeline that we encounter potential problems.

To illustrate this point, Caesar's comet was sighted in 44 BC, that is officially 2064 years ago, but if 4 centuries were added the comet was sighted 1,664 years ago.
 
Wow, Pierre, that article looks like it was a lot of work and effort. Thank you for compiling the information.

Finally got to reading this article. Got about half way through and came across a confusing graph. I think there's a mis-placement of your pointer arrow in Taylor Dome NO3 (A) graph. If it's suppose to be marking 10800BP, it should be moved to the left ~600 years.

NO3_belukha_tayor_dome10800_BP.jpg

This would also change the description that follows, where you write: The spike in Belukha (+15 ppb) is more pronounced than in Taylor Dome (+ 6 ppb). Should be closer to 30+ ppb? Not sure which spikes you are measuring from, maybe the ppb change is higher, it's a pretty big spike!

Back to reading article....

Very good find Skyfarmer, that's makes the case for a 3,600-year cycle even stronger. I will amend the graph tomorrow. I counted 1,8 graduations from the left of the 10,000 BP mark for Beluka and Taylor Dome but I missed the fact that the scale for the two graphs is different dooohhh!
 
Possible presence of a ninth planet (Planet X) causing gravitational perturbations on Trans-Neptunian objects and its period at about 3,500 years :

The Orbit of Planet Nine Derived from Engineering Physics

Robert Finch, Mattia A. Galiazzo
(Submitted on 24 Jan 2020)

I got excited when I read "its period at about 3,500 years", but a Neptunian object (with a possible accompanying asteroid swarm) at 233 AU from the Sun and an eccentricity of 0.65 would not approach the Earth close enough to be the culprit, unfortunately.:-(
 
Back
Top Bottom