New Evidence Suggests People Lived in the Arctic 45,000 Years Ago

Axial precession. The "North Pole" used to be close to Alaska, if not in Alaska. Which would put the South Pole somewhere near Australia?

Side note, all those people we've been burying in cemeteries will end up being "fossil fuels."

a reply to: JohnathanDoe

Axial precession.

Does not change location of the rotational axis. The north pole did not used to be close to Alaska.
www.mhhe.com...

In this wobble motion, the tilt of the earth stays roughly constant at 23.4 degrees but the orientation is always changing.

astro.wsu.edu...

a reply to: JohnathanDoe
You are confusing axial precession with magnetic pole wandering.
The earths magnetic poles wander , over time , with variances in the convective motion of the the molten metals of the core.
The rotational axis precesses about a fixed point , irrespective of the magnetic poles

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: namelesss
Sorry, but you haven't said anything at all worthy of a response.
Have a nice day.

Right, I guess a direct rebuttal to your claims and information regarding how those claims are not factual, and an explanation on how they are not factual, all alongside information that accurately depicts what radiocarbon dating and other dating methods really reflects is not considered a "worth response" these days

It's alright if you're unable to come to terms with how your previous claims on the matter were wrong. Change can be difficult. Especially for a closed mind.

Whatever.
I leave the debris of this discussion for you to clean up.
Again, you have said nothing in your last post to me, but personal insult.
I have nothing to defend, so your insult is meaningless!
That is the last resort of someone who is made uncomfortable by something, and hasn't the wherewithal to intelligently refute it', symptomatic of 'believers'.
Again, have a nice day.

a reply to: Asktheanimals

Thanks for the admonition, as I have been letting grammar and spelling slip rather purposefully as the further I go along it all gets rather redundant. But in the name of clarity even though you already knew the word intended and I did as well... there is no excuse, so I shall either put more effort into my posting so it seems I actually care about it.

Cheers

originally posted by: namelesss

Again, you have said nothing in your last post to me, but personal insult.

Here you are. Edited for your convenience.

_______________________________
You:
The point is that things seem to be 'consistently' older and older, as our age measuring tools improve.

Me:
It has nothing to do with how we measure age. The reason the date gets older and older is because we continue to make older and older discoveries.

If the dating conclusion was on a single find, and that date kept increasing (or fluctuating dramatically in any direction), only then would your point be accurate.

_______________________________

You:
At this rate, ban will be a billion years old in a few centuries.

Me:
If a radiocarbon dating date was ever a billion years, then the measurement is false. It would be false, because Radiocarbon dating only dates things as old as 50,000 years.

In the 1940s, scientists succeeded in finding out how long it takes for radiocarbon to disappear, or decay, from a sample of carbon from a dead plant or animal. Willard Libby, the principal scientist, had worked in the team making the nuclear bomb during World War 2, so he was an expert in nuclear and atomic chemistry. After the war he became very interested in peaceful applications of atomic science. He and two students first measured the "half-life" of radiocarbon. The half-life refers to the amount of time it takes for half the radiocarbon in a sample of bone or shell or any carbon sample to disappear. Libby found that it took 5568 years for half the radiocarbon to decay. After twice that time (about 11000 years), another half of that remaining amount will have disappeared. After another 5568 years, again another half will have disappeared. You can work out that after about 50 000 years of time, all the radiocarbon will have gone. Therefore, radiocarbon dating is not able to date anything older than 60 or 70 000 years old. The job of a radiocarbon laboratory is to measure the remaining amounts of radiocarbon in a carbon sample.

Source

_______________________________

You:
Is the readings of our measuring tools adequate to actually 'define' 'time'.

Me:
To the second? No, however, we have a number of methods which we can cross-examine to confirm the dates found, and we we have means to know confirm those dates elsewhere too.

No dating method is 100% accurate, nor does anyone claim it to be. However, we can determine accuracy, and in some cases it can be within a few hundred or a few thousand years give or take.

Out of 45,000 years, is 5 thousand years off in either direction so bad? No, it's incredibly accurate. It is also the reason why you don't see dates like "45,367 on january 5th". It's always posted at "about [this date of 45,000]"

_______________________________

You:
At this rate, it will be found that everything exists for the entire 'duration' of Universal existence!

You:
Is science closing in on what the mystics have known for millennia?

You:
That every moment is 'eternal'!

You:
Like quantum science finally 'discovering' Consciousness/God!

Me:
All these points are based on a false premise that we are actually discovering older and older dates using Radiocarbon Dating. As shown in my previous responses, this is simply not true. Radiocarbon Dating is not the method used to determine an age of a find that is over 50,000 years.

If you still would like a discussion on the matter, please feel free to respond to this points.

a reply to: Ghost147

We're still recovering from an Ice Age. That's why this whole "global warming" thing is so silly. All the Earth is doing is finishing its final stages of the current weather pattern that will take us to the level of things before the ice age. Having said that, it's no surprise that people think man inhabited Antarctica many many thousands of years ago. I don't trust carbon dating, but there's no doubt people were there a long time ago. Just wait until we get back to that weather pattern and the things that will be found beneath all that ice. There may even be cities below all that, that were covered in ice, that still have complete and in tact families of people that were frozen.

originally posted by: LSU0408
a reply to: Ghost147

We're still recovering from an Ice Age.

We are still in the ice age that began 2.6 million years ago. Currently we are in an interglacial period because the Greenland, Arctic, and Antarctic ice sheets still exist. An Ice age is defined by there being ice at the poles

That's why this whole "global warming" thing is so silly. All the Earth is doing is finishing its final stages of the current weather pattern that will take us to the level of things before the ice age.

Clearly, you should look at the science of global warming then as from your statement, you don't know anything about it

Having said that, it's no surprise that people think man inhabited Antarctica many many thousands of years ago.

People don't think that though, what's your source, are you still stuck on Hapgood?

I don't trust carbon dating,

That's pretty credulous, do you even know how carbon dating actually works, I don't mean the version often claimed here by the credulous with an agenda, I mean real carbon dating that is continually being proven accurate

but there's no doubt people were there a long time ago. Just wait until we get back to that weather pattern and the things that will be found beneath all that ice. There may even be cities below all that, that were covered in ice, that still have complete and in tact families of people that were frozen.

Get back to the weather pattern before the ice age ?
There was no civilisation 2.6 million years ago...
As for families being frozen, you are aware that when the cold blanket comes down, it takes thousands of years ?

originally posted by: Marduk
Get back to the weather pattern before the ice age ?
There was no civilisation 2.6 million years ago...
As for families being frozen, you are aware that when the cold blanket comes down, it takes thousands of years ?

Sure. But the deniers of Global Cooling at the time just sat there to prove a point.

Harte

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: namelesss

Again, you have said nothing in your last post to me, but personal insult.

Here you are. Edited for your convenience.

_______________________________

You:
The point is that things seem to be 'consistently' older and older, as our age measuring tools improve.

Me:
It has nothing to do with how we measure age. The reason the date gets older and older is because we continue to make older and older discoveries.

NO!
The very same 'bones' that were 5,000 years old, when examined by newer equipment, turns out to have been 10,000 years old.
That same bone, when examined by newer equipment, turns out to be 45,000 years old!
Are you getting this yet? I cannot make it any clearer.
THE SAME BONE!
Not 'successive finds', that is NOT what I am saying!
This is 'thinking out of the box' stuff!
(At least it takes us in that direction...)

If the dating conclusion was on a single find, and that date kept increasing (or fluctuating dramatically in any direction), only then would your point be accurate.

Are we on the same page yet?
Careful (he said, smiling), keep this up and you'll get stretch marks on your brain! *__- )

_______________________________

You:
At this rate, ban will be a billion years old in a few centuries.

Me:
If a radiocarbon dating date was ever a billion years, then the measurement is false. It would be false, because Radiocarbon dating only dates things as old as 50,000 years.

That is exactly what I am saying (and I was using carbon dating metaphorically)!
Our measuring tools constantly improve, and as they do, things are found to be older. a constantly observed phenomenon.
I was asking for theories, some independent thought, because "at this rate", things will be as 'old' as the Universe, in a few hundred years!
Every moment being, as the ancient mystics and philosophers knew/theorized, 'infinite/eternal = 'timeless'!

This has little to nothing to do with any local temporary tool (radiocarbon or an Etch-a-Sketch...), but the 'patterns' that manifest in the data in the presence of a long succession of ever improving measuring devices!
Whew.

If I have not YET made myself clear, if we are not yet on the same page, shall we just throw this out for anyone else with some notion of what I am saying.
If you still don't get it, my explanation must be inadequate, and you are just not trying! *__-
I am asking a very interesting question, but, it must be met at least halfway to even be recognized as such.
Thank you for making me focus, here, in my response.
Peace

originally posted by: namelesss
The very same 'bones' that were 5,000 years old, when examined by newer equipment, turns out to have been 10,000 years old.
That same bone, when examined by newer equipment, turns out to be 45,000 years old!
Are you getting this yet? I cannot make it any clearer.
THE SAME BONE!
Not 'successive finds', that is NOT what I am saying!

link to bones, or are you making this up as you go along ?

originally posted by: namelesss
NO!
The very same 'bones' that were 5,000 years old, when examined by newer equipment, turns out to have been 10,000 years old.
That same bone, when examined by newer equipment, turns out to be 45,000 years old!
Are you getting this yet? I cannot make it any clearer.
THE SAME BONE!
Not 'successive finds', that is NOT what I am saying!
This is 'thinking out of the box' stuff!
(At least it takes us in that direction...)

Could you source your information please? I don't recall that being in the article.

originally posted by: namelesss
That is exactly what I am saying (and I was using carbon dating metaphorically)!
Our measuring tools constantly improve, and as they do, things are found to be older. a constantly observed phenomenon.
I was asking for theories, some independent thought, because "at this rate", things will be as 'old' as the Universe, in a few hundred years!
Every moment being, as the ancient mystics and philosophers knew/theorized, 'infinite/eternal = 'timeless'!

I'm afraid that this notion is also not correct. We have various different types of dating, and many of those methods simply cannot go past a specific date, not because of our tools or technology, but because the different things they are measuring (such as carbon) just doesn't last long enough to get a reading that would be over a specific age.

Again, could you source the information where you've determined "Our measuring tools constantly improve, and as they do, things are found to be older."

originally posted by: namelesss
This has little to nothing to do with any local temporary tool (radiocarbon or an Etch-a-Sketch...), but the 'patterns' that manifest in the data in the presence of a long succession of ever improving measuring devices!
Whew.

Yes, many of our methods of dating specific things do improve over time, but that improvement does not mean all the dates are reading older times, but rather they are getting more accurate.

originally posted by: namelesss
If I have not YET made myself clear, if we are not yet on the same page, shall we just throw this out for anyone else with some notion of what I am saying.

I am aware of your position, now it is up to you to back that position with evidence.

originally posted by: namelesss
I am asking a very interesting question, but, it must be met at least halfway to even be recognized as such.

I was under the impression you were making statements, not asking a question. What was the question?

originally posted by: namelesss
Our measuring tools constantly improve, and as they do, things are found to be older. a constantly observed phenomenon.
If I have not YET made myself clear, if we are not yet on the same page, shall we just throw this out for anyone else with some notion of what I am saying.

Everyone knows what you're saying, so let's not pretend that you are simply being misunderstood.

No, we not only know exactly what you're saying, we also know you are completely wrong.

On the subject of dating, I've lived long enough to see some dates change. I could look them up if you really want me to.
But what I've seen is that as our measurements get better the range of dates we place an object within gets smaller. In other words, our dates get slightly more precise, when more precise tools can be used to measure them.

Hence, a relic that was previously dated 35,000 kya +/- 5k years is now (for example) dated to 34,000 kya +/- 4k years.

If you dispute this, then you really don't have any idea what you're talking about.

OTOH, new findings can place an object within a certain range of dates when previous to those findings the origin date may have been mostly speculative.

Harte

originally posted by: Op3nM1nd3d
a reply to: peter vlar

Milan Italy at 45 deg 28'N. So far, these 3 cities lie roughly the same distance from the equator yet Milan has a subtropical climate similar to what we see in the Caribbean.

This is simply not true. I would say that Milan has a closer to continetal climate than subtropical because Alps and Apennines mountains are blocking circulations coming from the sea. Even the average annual temperature graphs show the distinct difference between Northern Italy and Carribean temperature fluctuations.

Here is just one more proof..

Never heard of any snow in the Carribean on the same altitude where Milan, Italy lies. So Milan is much much closer to Portland and Montreal than it is to the Carribean in terms of climate which makes your claim false.

Just because You would say that Milan has a closer to Continental than Sub-Tropical climate does not make it so. It is listed as Sub-Tropical with a Continental influence. Montreal gets more precipitation in the winter than Milan does throughout the entire year as a result of the Alps effectively cutting off storm fronts. You showed evidence of snow in Milan, that doesn't mean that it has snowfall averages on par with Montreal though. The 3 locations I cited do in fact have different localized climates from one another and Milan is by far, the most mild of the 3.

Milan has a humid subtropical climate (Cfa, according to the Köppen climate classification) with continental (Dfa) influences.

www.stadtentwicklung.berlin.de...

originally posted by: namelesss


NO!
The very same 'bones' that were 5,000 years old, when examined by newer equipment, turns out to have been 10,000 years old.
That same bone, when examined by newer equipment, turns out to be 45,000 years old!
Are you getting this yet? I cannot make it any clearer.
THE SAME BONE!

Then you should have no trouble providing a citation to support your thesis statement no?


Not 'successive finds', that is NOT what I am saying!
This is 'thinking out of the box' stuff!
(At least it takes us in that direction...)

Are we on the same page yet?

I'm not sure you're even browsing the same bookstore.

That is exactly what I am saying (and I was using carbon dating metaphorically)!

Why? This is a science based forum and discussion. There are plenty of philosophy and metaphysics forums that this snake oil would go over much better in.

Our measuring tools constantly improve, and as they do, things are found to be older. a constantly observed phenomenon.

Then why not argue in favor of your position with specificity over ambiguity? Or better, yet, provide citations supporting this untethered hypothesis you seem to be brewing. Would that not make for a better discussion as opposed to playing truth or dare?

a reply to: punkinworks10

a reply to: Phage

"The Earth's axis rotates (precesses) just as a spinning top does. The period of precession is about 26,000 years.
Therefore, the North Celestial Pole will not always be point towards the same starfield.
Precession is caused by the gravitational pull of the Sun and the Moon on the Earth."

www.astro.cornell.edu...

Another term is "planetary wobble." As the top begins to slow down, it "wobbles." As the celestial pole gets closer or farther from the sun, and the magnetic pole shifts, the ice pack adjusts.

a reply to: JohnathanDoe
Yes, I am fully aware of what causes the precession of the rotational axis of the earth.
What I was saying is that the magnetic poles, even though they are some what aligned with the rotational axis, the two are not connected.
During the last polarity flip event, ~ 780-760k years ago, the magnetic field was so unstable that there was a period of time where there were 6 "North poles" at the same time. And during that event the polarity fliped over the course of a few days or weeks.
So when scientists talk about a pole shift, it has absolutely nothing to due with the rotational axis of the earth.

a reply to: JohnathanDoe

Another term is "planetary wobble." As the top begins to slow down, it "wobbles." As the celestial pole gets closer or farther from the sun, and the magnetic pole shifts, the ice pack adjusts.

No. The angle, relative to the Sun remains the same. Well, it changes by about 2º over a period of 40,000 years but that has nothing to do with precession. So, no. The north pole was never in Alaska. At most it would be about 30 miles from where it is now.
www.obliquity.com...

Has someone been reading Hapgood/Hancock

a reply to: Marduk evidently so