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

originally posted by: peter vlar

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?

Sigh...
Seriously, you have not ever heard of this happening?
You cannot find a single instance to illustrate my point?
You sound like a child with his hands tightly pressed against his ears, refusing to hear something.
There are numerous examples to evidence my thesis.
To sit here challenging me to provide a single one is obviously in preparation for demanding a second, or you'll find some 'error' somewhere.
Obfuscation.
I have run up against 'believers' before.
Your point is not to understand what I am saying, but to preserve the status-quo.

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.

And? I get it, you don't.

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.
Yeah, name-calling and belittling is a common symptom of a 'belief infection' feeling threatened.
If my peaches so frighten you, just stay away from the tree.
I am just offering food for contemplation and thought, the seeds fall where they may.

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?

Son, I am arguing no position, I make no assertions that I have any need to defend.
I merely offer my observations as food for thought.
Sometimes the seeds do not fall on fertile ground.
There is no intent to convince you of anything, nor am I selling anything, don't be afraid.
But I will not be lured into a juvenile pi$$ing match, either, so, have a nice night. *__-

a reply to: Harte
Dear Harte, even if the dates continue to get incrementally smaller and smaller, and we can even say 'consistently' (for argument's sake) the dates still do not seem to get any younger, generally.

originally posted by: Ghost147

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.

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

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."

Are you arguing that this does not happen?

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,

I agree, not ALL the dates are reading older times.
I would venture a large majority, though.

but rather they are getting more accurate.

More accurate, PERHAPS, but older, predominately.
And I add the 'perhaps' because all science is tentative!

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.

What, exactly, are you 'arguing', that with improving dating tools, things "don't' get older"?

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?

And we return to the starting post! Hahahaha!
I was offering that my observations are that as our measuring tools are refined, the majority of objects measured seem to be older than thought.
I was hypothesizing that is this is so, what might that pattern indicate?
Yes, much spirals into 'precision' (rather than ', but absolute precision, not being possible, is 'ever' aging and endless thing? Even if spiraling 'inwards' rather than 'outwards?
Entropy?

originally posted by: namelesss

You cannot find a single instance to illustrate my point?

No one can and people are asking you to support your own claims because your claims are inconsistent with the facts.
you made the assertion, so either back it up or withdraw it
Of course, we all know you won't and can't, because you are talking out of your imagination...
New tools make dating more accurate, not older, a simple fact of science which seems lost on you, because you are not scientific.

originally posted by: namelesss
a reply to: Harte
Dear Harte, even if the dates continue to get incrementally smaller and smaller, and we can even say 'consistently' (for argument's sake) the dates still do not seem to get any younger, generally.

This reflects only the accuracy of dates determined through less accurate means which, though they came with broader margins of error, actually did place artifacts (albeit generally) in the proper time period.
The fact that dates aren't getting "younger" as you put it does not support your argument that they are getting older, does it?

Harte

originally posted by: namelesss
Could you source your information please? I don't recall that being in the Koran.

What does any of this have to do with the Koran?...

Which information would you like citations for? Please specify and I will give you each and every one you require.

originally posted by: namelesss
Are you arguing that this does not happen?

At the scale in which you're claiming, this does not happen.

originally posted by: namelesss
I agree, not ALL the dates are reading older times.
I would venture a large majority, though.

No, they don't. Source your information.

originally posted by: namelesss
More accurate, PERHAPS, but older, predominately.
And I add the 'perhaps' because all science is tentative!

Again, source your information.

originally posted by: namelesss
What, exactly, are you 'arguing', that with improving dating tools, things "don't' get older"?

Yes. Now, source your information.

originally posted by: namelesss
I was offering that my observations are that as our measuring tools are refined, the majority of objects measured seem to be older than thought.

And you're observations stem from what sources?

originally posted by: namelesss
I was hypothesizing that is this is so, what might that pattern indicate?

It isn't so, as I and others have already shown you.

Now, please source your information so we can stop arguing about your baseless opinion, and instead move on to what is factual and what isn't.

a reply to: Phage

Precession does change the tilt... again, refer to a top. Watch the top spin, and as it begins it's precession, you can watch the angle of the axis change. At one side, the angle is the inverse of the angle on the opposite side. This changes the distance light travels, and also changes the way light is reflected off the surface, which causes climate change.

But I agree, precession alone isn't enough to place the celestial pole in Alaska. My bad for only saying axial precession in my first response. That's a combination things, including natural disasters, which DO alter the axis on which the Earth rotates. It is measurable. The Earthquakes in Japan did just that, and we measured it. Think of an unbalanced load of laundry in the washing machine. The washing machine begins to spin, and because of the uneven distribution of weight, it begins to wobble. Then the washing machine begins to move. Of course, on a planetary scale, the effects of this won't be known or felt for a very long time.

When changes in polarity occur, like 41,000 years ago, it causes major catastrophic global disasters. It is a possibility that prior to our written history, in the distant past, the Earth was sitting at a different angle. Polarity change, and boom, over the next 10,000 years, the planet shifts.

Another factor is polar wander, which occurs at a slow rate, and is caused by the Earth's rotation and the uneven distribution on mass. Again, think of the unbalanced washing machine.

And finally, another factor is the Earth's magnetic field, which is constantly shifting, along with the magnetic pole, due to the movement of both the planet and the liquid outer core.

Old boy can't get the past the idea of crust movement, which I was never talking about.

a reply to: JohnathanDoe

Precession does change the tilt... again, refer to a top.

That is not precession and the Earth is not a top. Precession has nothing to do with slowing rotation but a top is being affected by Earth's gravity so as it slows down it tends to fall over as it loses angular momentum. The Earth's rotation is slowing, very very gradually, but there is nothing to make the Earth fall over. Well actually there is, sort of, the gravity of other planets could could change the rotational axis (nothing to do with precession) but the Moon keeps that from happening. Interesting too, it is the Moon which is causing the Earth's rotation to slow. Very, very gradually.

That's a combination things, including natural disasters, which DO alter the axis on which the Earth rotates.

No. The figure axis is not the rotational axis.

The Earthquakes in Japan did just that, and we measured it.

The Japan earthquake produced a change in the figure axis which was calculable, but not measurable. That change also cause a change in the rate of Earth's rotation. Also calculable, but not measurable.

When changes in polarity occur, like 41,000 years ago, it causes major catastrophic global disasters.

What change in polarity? Are you talking about magnetic polarity or the Earth's obliquity? The obliquity changes a little over 2º and back over a period of 41,000 years. It does not suddenly shift. The last magnetic reversal was more than 750,000 years ago.

a reply to: Phage

That's EXACTLY what precession is.

Please explain what figure axis is, since I don't think you understand what changing it does.

The last reversal of polarity happened 41,000 years ago. It's called the Laschamp event.

a reply to: Phage

@Phage: I did my due diligence in researching different astronomical precessions, would you be willing to lay out in laymen terms the two major precessions that affect the earth: axial precession and perihelion?

As I understand it, axial precession (I believe also the precession of the equinoxes) occurs every 72,000 years is a cycle where both 23.5 latitude, tropical lines vary from one extreme to the other. Am I close? Beyond the above post of your's are there any other factors contributing to this type of precession? Be very interested in your thoughts expounded on this...

Perihelion precession seems a bit more straight-forward. To my laymen mind, perihelion precession is related to earth's orbit to the sun. I believe just several weeks ago we were at the perihelion point (closest our earth is to the sun during its elliptical orbit) in our orbit (currently in NC). Am I close? Any interesting take home messages with this type of precession?

Mainly interested in the axial precession and its impact, particularly as it relates to ice ages. Also, there's a good bit of data suggesting some older cultures were well aware of the precession of the equinoxes and may have devoted significant/time/effort/resources studying this fact.

Thanks in advance for your time and anything you maybe able to add.

Cheers,

Tony

a reply to: JohnathanDoe

That's EXACTLY what precession is.

No. Precession is not a change in the rotational axis. It is a change in where that axis points. Precession does not change the relationship of Earth's axis to the Sun.

Please explain what figure axis is, since I don't think you understand what changing it does.

I understand quite well, thank you. The figure axis is the equivalent of the "center of gravity" for a rotating object. Think of a washing machine on spin cycle.

The last reversal of polarity happened 41,000 years ago. It's called the Laschamp event.

Well, not exactly a reversal, the term used is "excursion" or microchron. The excursion actually began about 42,250 years ago then things returned to "normal" by about 39,700 years ago (the exact timing varies by location). There have been several such excursions since the last reversal.




geology.gsapubs.org...
Whether or not it had any effect on climate is a topic of debate.

a reply to: BeefNoMeat

As I understand it, axial precession (I believe also the precession of the equinoxes) occurs every 72,000 years is a cycle where both 23.5 latitude, tropical lines vary from one extreme to the other.

The cycle takes about 26,000 years. The lines of latitude do not change however. The tropics stay the tropics. As you mentioned, the manifestation of the cycle is that the timing of the equinoxes changes. One way to look at it is this;

Right now dawn on the vernal equinox (March 20) occurs at about the same time Fomalhaut is rising and Arturus is setting. To put it in astrological terms, the Sun will be in Pisces.

Now, lets move forward 13,000 years. When the Sun rises on the equinox on that day, Arcturus will be rising and Fomalhaut will be setting. The Sun will be in Virgo. The "opposite" constellation from where it is now.

But the Sun will be rising at the same place on the horizon because the tilt of the Earth has not changed. Actually, as has been mentioned, it will be very slightly different due to that other cycle (nutation). About 1º different.

Perihelion precession seems a bit more straight-forward.

You have the correct idea about perihelion being the closest point we get to the Sun but you bring up another interesting point. Just as "celestial" timing varies due to axial precession, the timing of perihelion also changes. Where now we are closest to the Sun in northern winter; 11,000 years ago we were closest to the Sun in summer.

Often referred to as Milancovitch cycles, all three factors present variations in the intensity of sunlight hitting the Earth. No one of them would indicate any drastic changes in climate. But the combined effects, over time, could. The extent of those effects is not fully understood but there is some evidence that the occurrence of glacial periods is influenced by them.

a reply to: Phage

Where do you guys get this stuff from? You're attributing words to me I'm not saying, then arguing that I'm wrong, when I'm not.

The angle of the axis changes. The TILT. Not the axis itself. When the Earth is tilted one way, the pole is closer to the sun. When it is tilted the other way, due to precession, the pole is farther from the sun.

So now you're going to use my analogy of the washing machine to explain figure axis and try to tell me my analogy of the washing machine for figure axis was wrong? Unbelievable.

And, yes, it was called an excursion, and what happened during that excursion was a complete reversal of polarity. And it caused major catastrophic global disasters.... which, as I've explained could have caused the Earth's axis to shift, which would have a direct impact on climate change.

a reply to: JohnathanDoe

The angle of the axis changes. The TILT.

The angle, the tilt, relative to the Sun does not change due to precession.

You're attributing words to me I'm not saying, then arguing that I'm wrong, when I'm not.

I beg your pardon?

Axial precession. The "North Pole" used to be close to Alaska, if not in Alaska.

No.

As the celestial pole gets closer or farther from the sun,

Precession does not cause the celestial pole to vary in relation to the Sun. What changes that is the Earth's location in its orbit.

So now you're going to use my analogy of the washing machine to explain figure axis and try to tell me my analogy of the washing machine for figure axis was wrong?

You were not explaining the figure axis, this is what you said:

That's a combination things, including natural disasters, which DO alter the axis on which the Earth rotates.

The Earth does not rotate on its figure axis. It rotates on its rotational axis.

And it caused major catastrophic global disasters

How do you know this? What disasters? Do you think correlation equals causation?

which, as I've explained could have caused the Earth's axis to shift

Not Earth's rotational axis. Not Earth's tilt relative to the Sun.

a reply to: Phage

No, when explaining figure axis, I said:

The Earthquakes in Japan did just that, and we measured it. Think of an unbalanced load of laundry in the washing machine. The washing machine begins to spin, and because of the uneven distribution of weight, it begins to wobble. Then the washing machine begins to move. Of course, on a planetary scale, the effects of this won't be known or felt for a very long time.

The angle, the tilt, relative to the Sun does not change due to precession.

I see. So who cares about simple mathematics, anyway. Put a ball 3 feet away from a stick. Call the ball Earth, and call the stick the Sun. Mark the top of the ball with a marker, and tilt the ball at an angle. Call that mark the North Pole. Now rotate that ball so the mark on the ball moves in a circular fashion. At every point on that circle, the mark has a new angle and distance from that stick.

Now move the ball in an oval around the stick, while retaining the circular motion of the mark on the ball. The mark continues to have different angles and distance from the sun.

Now, spin the ball while retaining the ovular orbit around the stick and circular movement of the mark on the ball. It continues to have different angles and distances from the stick.

Come on. Y'all are #ing with me, right? This is basic stuff here.

I already explained to you I shouldn't have said only axial precession in my first post. Then I went on explaining the other factors that cause the poles to be in different locations over time. I guess I can't expect you guys to read this stuff, though. Like Mr. Moving Crust who claimed I was talking about a guy I had never heard of, then started agreeing with the things I was saying while telling me I was wrong.

But I agree, precession alone isn't enough to place the celestial pole in Alaska. My bad for only saying axial precession in my first response. That's a combination things, including natural disasters, which DO alter the axis on which the Earth rotates.

After which came the washing machine analogy for figure axis...

You do realize if the Earth was spinning around a different point, you know, due to the Earth's center of gravity shifting, the north pole wouldn't be where it currently is, right?

a reply to: JohnathanDoe

You do realize if the Earth was spinning around a different point, you know, due to the Earth's center of gravity shifting, the north pole wouldn't be where it currently is, right?

A sphere cannot spin around a point. It spins around an axis.

A change in the location of the figure axis does not move the rotational axis.

To explain the difference, Keith Sverdrup, a seismologist at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, likened Earth to a spinning figure skater holding a rock in one hand. The rotational axis of the skater is still down the middle of the body, he said, but the skater's figure axis is shifted slightly in the direction of the hand holding the rock.

news.nationalgeographic.com...

a reply to: Phage

Many thanks. I got the 1 degree of precession (72 years?) mixed up with entirety of precession: 26,000 years. Thanks for the clarification (particularly on the tropics, etc) and expounding upon both types of precession. Come here to learn and I did exactly that

a reply to: Phage

Holy crap dude. You argue semantics for no reason other than to argue. We all understand the Earth rotates on it's axis. Oh my god, I said point instead of axis. Big deal.

What happens if you leave the overloaded washing machine running for too long? It breaks down because the spinning tank begins shifting out of place, off it's original axis.

What happens when that figure skater extends her arms with that rock? She begins losing momentum because her center of gravity has shifted. Unless she changes the angle of her rotational axis, or her north and south pole (other foot), to bring her body up against the rock, she will eventually stop spinning, if she doesn't fall first.

a reply to: JohnathanDoe

What happens when that figure skater extends her arms with that rock? She begins losing momentum because her center of gravity has shifted.

No.
Her momentum is conserved and as a result her rate of rotation decreases.
csep10.phys.utk.edu...

And her rotational axis does not change.

a reply to: Phage

Yes, her rotational axis doesn't change if she doesn't mind falling.

Just like the unbalanced washing machine who's tank shifts and breaks.

Had she been holding a rock of equal mass in her other hand, you'd be correct, she wouldn't lose momentum. But because she's only holding the rock in one hand, as soon as she begins extending her arm, she is changing her mass distribution, which alters her angular velocity, which alters her angular momentum. The only way to conserve the angular momentum is to change the axis on which she rotates, effectively re-centering her center of gravity.