Paradoxes Resolved, Origins Illuminated - Requiem for Relativity
Paradoxes Resolved, Origins Illuminated
Paradoxes Resolved, Origins Illuminated
Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Members | Search | FAQ
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

 All Forums
 Astrophysics
 Gravity & Relativity
 Requiem for Relativity
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Previous Page | Next Page
Author  Topic Next Topic
Page: of 72

Larry Burford

USA
2071 Posts

Posted - 16 Jan 2012 :  16:56:35  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
[Joe] "I thought it might be ... . . A neighboring farmer suggested ... "

These seem like reasonable speculations. Actual gunfire is also a realistic possibility. Actual cannon fire or fireworks are less likely, but still not impossible. I've heard a number of unexpected and - if correctly identified - unlikely things out in the woods at my dad's place, especially when the air is cold and still.

Do you have a suspicion that this might be anything other than some sort of pyrotechnic event, or a thermal contraction event brought on by the rapid drop in temperature?

Regards,
LB
Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
956 Posts

Posted - 19 Jan 2012 :  12:16:11  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Larry Burford
...Do you have a suspicion that this might be anything other than some sort of pyrotechnic event, or a thermal contraction event brought on by the rapid drop in temperature?

Regards,
LB



I haven't heard the booms lately. Maybe that's because the water in fissures within treetrunks is always frozen now, not melting and refreezing.

I do have a more exotic theory. I live exactly atop something called the "Ames Block", a narrow pre-Cambrian uplift along the east edge of the (abortive) North American continental rift. On top of this pre-Cambrian uplifted block here, is Mississippian and, on top of that, Pennsylvanian, sedimentary rock; I live almost exactly over the edge of the Pennsylvanian layer, apparently an ancient bluff that faced to the west. On top of that is glacial till; I live just inside the boundary of the most recent glaciation in central Iowa.

There could be an unknown geologic process that is causing these booms somehow. Maybe the cause of Ice Ages is a wandering geographic pole. The geographic pole could wander with a surprisingly small input of force or energy, because if Earth's axis in space remained fixed, angular momentum would be conserved. This is something that many others have speculated. Parts of the seabed near Antarctica show a surprising absence of iceberg debris in sediment corresponding to only a few thousand years ago.
Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
956 Posts

Posted - 19 Jan 2012 :  12:25:48  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Yesterday: 100th anniversary of Scott's reaching South Pole

Yesterday, January 18, was the 100th anniversary of the Robert Falcon Scott expedition reaching the South Pole. Though only the second expedition to reach the pole, Scott accumulated a wealth of scientific data in the form of notebooks and small specimens - at the cost of every life in the expedition.

Let's have a moment of silence for them.
Go to Top of Page

Jim

1815 Posts

Posted - 19 Jan 2012 :  17:23:05  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Dr Joe, Your geology info is very interesting to me, but, how could your explaination of the sound fit with your only hearing it when ideal weather conditions exist? The rock buried deep down is not going to be affected by changes in the weather.
Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
956 Posts

Posted - 21 Jan 2012 :  16:28:32  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Jim

...rock buried deep down is not going to be affected by changes in the weather.



Hi Jim!

This is key, because basically I'm saying that I think either treetrunks are splitting or North America is. I heard the booms at sunset near the winter solstice, so the alignment of Earth and Sun might be crucial, if it's not just treetrunks or metal sheds.

- Joe Keller
Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
956 Posts

Posted - 23 Jan 2012 :  11:54:59  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Cause of Ice Ages: geographic pole wander

A distinction must be made between Earth's angular momentum vector (or Earth's instantaneous spin axis, which because Earth is nearly spherical, lies very near its angular momentum vector) and the geographic pole. The geographic pole could wander from Greenland, to Brazil or anywhere, with no change in Earth's angular momentum vector or spin axis. It would be like a spinning billiard ball that shifts so that the spin axis remains the same, but a different part of the billiard ball lies at its pole.

Though astronomers agree that the Milankovitch cycle is correct (according to Newtonian celestial mechanics) leading astronomers immediately objected that the orbital eccentricity and axial tilt changes involved in the Milankovitch cycle, are far too small to account for Ice Ages, without invoking extreme and dubious positive feedback mechanisms. The Milankovitch cycle might synchronize with Ice Ages not because it causes them, but because both are entrained by some yet unknown physical effect.

Hapgood noticed that Pleistocene sediments and fossils told the story, not so much of a huge ice sheet expanding from the Arctic Ocean to Chicago, but of an ice sheet migrating away from Siberia and into Canada, with a pole at Hudson's Bay. Hapgood noticed evidence that there have been several different poles during the Pleistocene, at various places all now north of 45deg latitude. Though Hapgood thought that Earth's crust slid around while most of Earth didn't change in its rotation, I think the best evidence indicates that the entire Earth shifted so that a new point was under the (constant) north pole in space.

George Darwin and other experts noted that Earth's equatorial bulge confers huge gyroscopic stability, but this assumes that Earth is absolutely solid. Really, as the geographic pole shifts, the bulge can shift. Even if Earth were an unfractured solid, the tiny change in curvature needed for even a 90 degree change in the geographic pole, might be feasible. Instead of curving down 4000/300 mile in 6000 miles, the surface would have to curve up the same amount. The change in height (measured from the tangent) over a distance of one mile would be only

4000mi/300 * 2 /6000^2 = 1mm

Just because the geographic pole is almost constant now (and for at least the last 4500 years, because the Great Pyramid is only about 6 arcminutes off of true north in its alignment), doesn't mean it always was. Mars' geographic pole seems almost constant now too, but the water erosion on Mars suggests sudden melting of icecaps and permafrost, which could have been due to sudden shifts in Mars' geographic pole. The discrepancy between the geographic and magnetic poles of Earth, Uranus and Neptune, could be because the magnetic poles need more than a few thousand years to catch up with the geographic poles, when the entire planet shifts, not just the crust. Indeed Earth's magnetic pole assumes a position roughly intermediate between Earth's present north pole and the Hudson's Bay geographic pole theorized by Hapgood for the latest Ice Age.
Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
956 Posts

Posted - 23 Jan 2012 :  13:24:03  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Pole shift imminent?

The booms I heard at sunset in December, the often-unexplained humming sounds increasingly reported at many places in the world, and now the other strange sounds and vibrations (e.g. setting off car alarms in Germany) suddenly reported worldwide (or presumably occurring worldwide but mainly reported in the places where internet access is common): these could indicate Earth changes preparing for pole shift. Not from a political, but from a biological perpective, how would humanity react?

My purpose isn't to say that Candidate A is good or Country X is bad. Biology is part of science and the human species is part of biology. The absence of cats at Pompeii (though tame cats had been commonplace in Greco-Roman civilization for centuries) tells us that cats sensed the impending volcanic eruption: they smelled or heard or felt or otherwise sensed something that caused them to flee. Likewise the response of humans, or at least of some humans, might tell us something about impending Earth changes.

It's not likely that the readers of the Metaresearch messageboard are the only people who think about this. The governments of this world harbor individuals who are more incisive than the average professor, or more incisive than the average professor seems to be. Elements within major governments think about this. If they really thought that major Earth changes were imminent, there would be increasing competition for resources and jockeying for position, likely ending in a World War just before the Earth changes struck. Some benign elements would work urgently toward "world government", hoping to "beat the deadline" so humanity could "face this together" without "fighting among ourselves". Yet there is a strong thread in the thinking of even the most benign elites, that "the masses can't handle the truth", "we have to avoid panic". So secrecy, censorship, distraction and disinformation would happen, not necessarily from evil motives.

Regarding the World War outcome, it seems significant that the oldest and most famous U. S. aircraft carrier, the "Enterprise", now is being sent into the Persian Gulf danger zone only a year before its scheduled decommissioning. Maybe, if war is thought to be inevitable, it's militarily best to let them sink the oldest one, and propagandistically best to let them sink the one with the most famous name.

Kepler thought astrological influences somehow were real; in any case they are real to some people because those people think they are real. Mars will be at opposition March 3 (minimum Sun-Mars-Earth angle) and its nearest approach to Earth March 5. Mars' conjunction with the full moon will be March 8, and in addition the moon lies on the equator then.
Go to Top of Page

shando

Canada
205 Posts

Posted - 23 Jan 2012 :  19:00:46  Show Profile  Visit shando's Homepage  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Joe Keller

Cause of Ice Ages: geographic pole wander

(and for at least the last 4500 years, because the Great Pyramid is only about 6 arcminutes off of true north in its alignment), doesn't mean it always was.



Hmmm ... Joe, there seems to be a significant number of non-egyptologists who believe that the Great Pyramid is considerably older than 4,500 years old, so maybe the pole has been stable for longer than that too.
Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
956 Posts

Posted - 24 Jan 2012 :  21:00:03  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by shando

...non-egyptologists who believe that the Great Pyramid is considerably older than 4,500 years old, so maybe the pole has been stable for longer than that too.



Thanks for mentioning this. The other Giza pyramids are oriented NSEW with accuracy similar to the Great Pyramid, but maybe they simply copied its orientation. Even if the Great Pyramid is 4500 y. o. (as mainstream Egyptologists think) its orientation might have been copied from earlier structures or markers.

I mentioned George Darwin (a son of Charles Darwin) in my earlier post. Reading today in Munk & MacDonald, "The Rotation of the Earth" (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1960) I learned that George Darwin was well aware of the solid vs. plastic Earth question, regarding the equatorial bulge, and made the groundbreaking calculations about that.

Munk & MacDonald, citing a 1955 paper by Bondi & Gold, say that the difference in period between the actual (tiny) 420-day "Chandler wobble" and the 300-day theoretical Eulerian wobble for an absolutely solid Earth, affords an estimate of Earth's "plasticity", i.e. Play-Dough quality. This estimated value of the plasticity then affords an estimate that Earth's pole should shift to the mid-Pacific ocean, and the equatorial bulge shift appropriately, in a mere 100,000 years. (A mid-Pacific pole would be dynamically favored because then Asia and the Americas would be generally nearer the equatorial bulge.)

This 100,000 year timescale for about a 90 degree shift, is almost as fast as needed to explain the pole shifts that Hapgood and others hypothesized for the Pleistocene Ice Ages. Whatever is presently preventing that shift of the pole to the mid-Pacific, might cease to operate during times of pole shift.

Edited by - Joe Keller on 24 Jan 2012 21:06:58
Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
956 Posts

Posted - 26 Jan 2012 :  13:40:01  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Dec 13, 2012: maximum torque New Moon

The monthly minimum distance of Luna from Earth's center, occurs at 23h GMT, Dec. 12, 2012. This perigee, 357,100 km, is unusually close, because it occurs near a New Moon and near Earth's perihelion. The New Moon (minimum angle Sun-Luna-Earth) is at 08h GMT Dec. 13, only 9 hours later. This coincidence of factors - New Moon, perigee, perihelion - makes the tides especially strong.

There is another coincident factor: The Sun is near its greatest distance from the equator, because Dec. 13 is only 8 days before the solstice. Luna's monthly minimum declination (using either J2000 coords or equinox of date) is -20.9deg, 04h GMT Dec. 13. So, not only is the tide near its maximum possible strength; the torque on Earth's equatorial bulge is near its maximum possible strength.
Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
956 Posts

Posted - 29 Jan 2012 :  15:08:22  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Two more astronomical correlations of the winter solstice, 2012

Not only is there a transit of Venus as seen from Earth, in June 2012, there is also a transit of Mercury as seen from Venus, maximum at 08h GMT Dec. 18, 2012. The angle between the orbits of Mercury and Venus (found by applying a plane trigonometry approximation to the spherical problem of finding it from their orbital elements) is 4.32deg. At the time of the transit, the difference in their heliocentric ecliptic latitudes is only 0.153deg, which closeness happens on average only about once in 4.32/0.153*pi/2 = 44 Mercury-Venus conjunctions. The Sun-Venus-Mercury angle is about 0.22deg < 0.37 needed for a transit.

Also, there is a conjunction of Luna and Uranus, nearest approach in angular separation and in ecliptic longitude, 17h GMT Dec. 20. These bodies will be near the vernal equinox point:

Luna RA, Decl = 2.8, +5.6
Uranus " = 4.4, +1.1

The importance of this conjunction is due to several phenomena mentioned in my earlier posts:

1. The four asteroids with the special ~5.14hr rotation period, and Uranus, align with the Sun and with each other near this upcoming winter solstice.

2. The moons and rings of Uranus show many resonances with that 5.14hr period (as do the moons of Mars and to much less extent, those of Jupiter and Saturn).

3. Several moons of Uranus align with the Sun, Uranus and each other, within hours of this winter solstice.

4. Earth's rotation frequency minus twice Luna's (also Mars' rotation frequency minus once Luna's) is a frequency corresponding to 5 times the ~5.14 hour period, so Earth and Luna also show a resonance with it, though a relatively complicated one.

Edited by - Joe Keller on 29 Jan 2012 15:16:09
Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
956 Posts

Posted - 02 Feb 2012 :  18:22:02  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Saturn's, Jupiter's & Uranus' moons align, Jan. 17, 19 & 26, 2013, resp.

The error from assuming that Jupiter's moons lie in the ecliptic, is negligible. The error from assuming that Saturn's do, can be up to about incl^2/4 radians = 3deg of revolution, but this is about the same for all the moons, in my method of calculation (because they lie in equal or opposite directions at the beginning and end of the time periods I consider) so the qualitative results aren't affected. The effect of the moons' (very small) orbital eccentricities is also neglected.

The least sum of squared differences in orbital angle, for Saturn's 5 large moons, during the time interval Dec. 1, 2012 - Jan. 31, 2013, occurs about Jan. 16.974, 2013; the Saturncentric ecliptic longitudes are about

Tethys 239 = 180+59
Dione 50
Rhea 55
Titan 57
Iapetus 236 = 180+56

The analogous time for Jupiter is Jan. 19.090. The Jupitercentric longitudes then are

Io 121
Europa 301 = 180+121
Ganymede 302 = 180+122
Callisto 300 = 180+120

Though these moons have famous resonances with each other, those resonances are inexact enough, that the orbital phases should be scrambled. For example, Ganymede::Europa = 7.155d::3.551d = 2.015, not 2; and Rhea::Dione = 4.52::2.74 = 1.65, not 5/3 = 1.667. The closeness of the other four moons to Titan, is something that randomly should prevail only

2*7*1*1*4^4/360^4 = 1/5,000,000 of the time

and the closeness of the other three moons to Ganymede only

1*1*2*4^3/360^3 = 1/360,000 of the time.

The fastest moons move a degree ahead of the slowest, in about 0.005 day, so this closeness lasts ~0.005 day, and thus is something that should happen once in 0.005d*360,000 = 5 yr for Jupiter, and 0.005d*5,000,000 = 70 yr for Saturn. Yet these rare events occur for Jupiter and Saturn only 2d apart, and less than one month after the winter solstice of 2012 (end of Mayan calendar 13th "baktun" cycle).

When Saturn's moons align with each other and with Saturn, Jupiter nearly lies on that line. However when Jupiter's moons align with each other and with Jupiter, it is only Pluto that lies somewhat near that line.

Uranus' extreme tilt causes the longitude of its moons to be very sensitive to their position on their orbit, at high Uranocentric ecliptic latitudes; but insensitive at low latitudes. As expected, the best agreement in longitude, for Uranus' 5 biggest moons, during the interval Dec. 1, 2012 - Feb. 28, 2013, is when all are fairly near the orbital plane of Uranus. The Uranocentric ecliptic latitudes at Jan. 26.143 are:

Miranda 343 = -17 on the front (sunward) side of Uranus
Ariel 173 = +7 in back of Uranus
Umbriel 162 = +18 in back
Titania 331 = -29 in front
Oberon 171 = +9 in back

This closeness to Oberon (modulo 180) prevails

8*2*9*20*4^4/360^4 = 1/23,000 of the time

but only a tenth that often (0.05d*23,000*10 = 30 yr, equating ~10deg separations to ~0.05d duration) would they be so close together and also so close to Uranus' node. The longitudes are near the longitude of Uranus' node, and as with Saturn, this planetocentric line of longitude passes near Jupiter.

Edited by - Joe Keller on 03 Feb 2012 17:10:13
Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
956 Posts

Posted - 04 Feb 2012 :  16:01:32  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
The surprising resonance of the large outer moons

Summary. Titan, Triton and all five large moons of Uranus, resonate with the commonest orbital period of classical Kuiper belt objects. The high numerical values of these resonances suggest that they are due not to Newtonian gravity, but to an undiscovered force.


Using the posted (online Feb. 3, 2012) NASA Fact Sheet periods for solar system moons, the following relations hold (sometimes the last digit is not significant):

exactly 6335 Titan (a Saturn moon) orbital periods (6335=5*7*181)
= 71464.975 Miranda (Uranus moon) periods (71465=5*14293)
= 40078.989 Ariel periods (40079=13*3083)
= 24374.983 Umbriel (24375=3*5^4*13)
= 11603.001 Titania (!) (11603=41*283)
= 7502.967 Oberon (7503=3*41*61)
= 17188.489 (half-whole resonance) Triton (Neptune moon)(17188.5*2=34377=3*7*1637)

To confirm this, I repeated the calculations, using the (online, Feb. 4, 2012) Jet Propulsion Lab values. These usually were given to more significant figures, though I had to convert mean motions to orbital periods. The JPL values are referred to local Laplace planes for Jupiter's, Saturn's, and Neptune's moons, but are simply mean equatorial elements for Uranus' moons. Their Uranus moon values are from a 1987 Astronomy & Astrophysics paper.

6335 Titan periods
= 71465.076 Miranda
= 40079.056 Ariel
= 24375.027 Umbriel
= 11603.027 Titania
= 7502.983 Oberon
= 17188.518 (half-whole) Triton

Whichever Titan period I use, multiplying it by 6335 also gives 147.04 Mars revolution periods.

The Julian day very nearly equals the mean solar day, and according to a USNO graph posted online, exactly equals it in about 2013. If I adopt the JPL value for Titan's period, 15.945448 Julian day, I find that 6335 times this is

15.945448*6335*366.25636/365.25636 = 101,290.97 sidereal Earth day

but on the other hand using the NASA value for Titan, I find

15.945421*6335/1.025956756 = 98,458.58 sidereal Mars day

and 15.945421*6335*(1/1.025956756 - 1/686.9798529)

= 98,311.54 synodic Mars day,

a possible half-whole resonance, using Folkner's 1997 Mars rotation value as cited by Bouquillon & Souchay, A&A, 1999, Table 5 (Folkner's differs inconsequentially from the value of Ashbrook, Astronomical Journal, 1953).

This mysterious resonant period, equal to 6335 Titan orbits, is, using the JPL value, 276.56239 Julian yr. This is the orbital period corresponding to a semimajor axis of 42.5 AU, which distance is, the last time I looked at a chart of it, within a few tenths of an AU of the mode of the distribution (i.e. peak) of the semimajor axes of classical (i.e. non-plutino) Edgeworth-Kuiper belt objects. The tidal effect of these rather symmetrically distributed, low mass, distant objects, hardly could cause these high numerical resonances of the outer planet moons. So, likely there is an undiscovered force at work, causing these resonances.

Edited by - Joe Keller on 04 Feb 2012 16:16:33
Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
956 Posts

Posted - 07 Feb 2012 :  15:46:29  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
The surprising resonance of the large outer moons, continued:
statistical significance

Using the NASA values in the preceding post, I consider the sum "S", for the five Uranus moons, of the squares of the differences from the nearest whole cycle. Trying all numbers of Titan cycles from 1 to 10,000, S is minimum for 6335.

For 100 "Monte Carlo" trials, I altered the orbital periods of Titan and the Uranus moons individually, randomly within an interval of +/- 1%. For each trial, S was minimized at some number of Titan cycles in the range [1,10,000]. The mean such minimum was 0.01130; the standard deviation of these 100 minima was 0.00420. If the distribution is normal near the mean, 16% of these S minima should be <0.00710.

Actually 13 of the 100, are <0.00600 (sigma = 1.26), vs. 10 expected for a normal curve. Also 7/100 are <0.00500 (sigma = 1.50) vs. 7 expected. Furthermore 3/100 are <0.00400 (sigma = 1.74) vs. 4 expected. The real value, 0.00210 (sigma = 2.19) should correspond to a tail of 1.4% of Monte Carlo trials, if the normal approximation holds this close to zero, but because S cannot be <0, the significance is better than this. Indeed the smallest of the 100 Monte Carlo trials was 0.00325.

Addendum Feb. 9: In a Monte Carlo trial of 800, 6 had minimum S values (for the 10,000 variations) less than the actual 0.00210. This corresponds to p=6/800=0.75% (one-tailed).

Edited by - Joe Keller on 09 Feb 2012 20:56:27
Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
956 Posts

Posted - 07 Feb 2012 :  16:52:32  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
The surprising resonance of the large outer moons, continued:
link to Mayan Long Count

Let's adopt the NASA value for Titan's orbital period, and Uranus' & Saturn's. Recall that the Mayan Long Count is 360*5200 days. Because of its exactness, let's take 6335 times Titan's orbital period, as the Kuiper belt orbital period.

Then f(Kuiper) + 0.25*f(Saturn) - f(Uranus)
= 1/101,014.242d + 0.25/10,759.22d - 1/30,685.4d
= 1/1,829,200d = 1/5008yr = approx. 1/5125 yr = 1/MayanLongCount

Though this relation gives the Mayan Long Count with 2% error, the Mayan frequency term is given as a difference of terms that are as much as 60 times larger. If the formula were rearranged, it would be seen to give Saturn's orbital period to 0.05% error.
Go to Top of Page

Bart

Belgium
76 Posts

Posted - 11 Feb 2012 :  06:09:33  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Jupiter/Luna occultation timing anomalies in the 19th century: Occultation of Jupiter, 1889 September 3
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1889AJ......9...84K

When comparing the reported timings with the values derived from Stellarium.
Considering the time lapse between first contact of Jupiter with the events as published:
- observed 2nd contact is 6 seconds earlier as per Stellarium
- observed reappearance of Callisto, IO + 3th and 4th contact are around 29 seconds earlier as per Stellarium

Explanation:
- The moon appears to move down relative to the position of Jupiter (and stars)
- This is because the observer is positioned on a rotating earth of which the axis has an inclination relative to the path of the Moon
- The observed position of Jupiter is different from the calculated position because of the effect of planetary aberration
- Planetary Aberration = Effect of Light-time delay + Aberration of light (or however we want to call this effect)
- The effect of Ligth-time delay is taken into account through the Stellarium software (parameter selection)
- Jupiter is observed 'to the right' of its calculated position which explains why the observed first contact is earlier then calculated
- The sooner the first contact is made, the shorter the time between first contact and the reappearance.
(because the Moon appears to move upward: the later the first contact, the longer the 'path behind the moon')

By displacing Jupiter and its planets respectively 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30 arcsec (on the Stellarium images), I derived that the duration until reappearance is decreasing with around 1 seconds for every increase of planetary aberration with 1 arcsec. The observed timings match with an aberration of around 25 arcsec.

On 1889 September 3, the Earh and Jupiter were moving in a direction almost perpendicular to each other (85 degrees). (The Earth was moving away from Jupiter). Stars showing in a direction of Jupiter were therefore subject to only 2 arcsec of stellar aberration.

On a side note: Following the logic above: the reported reappearance of Europa (satellite II) looks off with 30 seconds.
Go to Top of Page

Bart

Belgium
76 Posts

Posted - 11 Feb 2012 :  06:48:56  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Correction:

"because the Moon appears to move upward: the later the first contact, the longer the 'path behind the moon'":

because the Moon appears to move downward: the later the first contact, the longer the 'path behind the moon'
Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
956 Posts

Posted - 15 Feb 2012 :  17:27:17  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Catastrophism: Ice Ages and redomestication of species

Paragraph from the Wikipedia article "Dog":

"The present lineage of dogs was domesticated from gray wolves about 15,000 years ago. Remains of domesticated dogs have been found in Siberia and Belgium from about 33,000 years ago. The earlier specimens not only show shortening of the snout but widening of the muzzle and some crowding of teeth making them clearly domesticated dogs and not wolves. There are more sites of varying ages in and around Europe and Asia younger than 33,000 years ago but significantly older than 15,000 years ago. None of these early domestication lineages seem to have survived the Last Glacial Maximum. Although mDNA suggest a split between dogs and wolves around 100,000 years ago, no specimens predate 33,000 years ago that are clearly morphologically domesticated dog."

Budiansky's book on the cat, says that the subspecies Felis silvestris lybica (the North African wildcat), though wild, is far more tameable than other Felis species or subspecies such as Felis silvestris silvestris (the European wildcat). This tameability has been documented by many objective criteria of its behavior, or the behavior of its hybrids with the domestic cat. One such "tame" behavior is called neotenic behavior, i.e. a preservation of kitten behavior such as play, in the behavior of the adult. This subspecies, lybica, also happens to be the most widely distributed subspecies of F. silvestris.

Budiansky remarks that besides cats, other mammalian genera or families, such as sheep/goats, contain one special wild species that is both: (A) by far the closest to being tame; and (B) the most widespread. To me, the situation with cats seems the most clear:

Sometime, perhaps during the last interglacial (130,000-100,000 yr ago according to the "Quaternary glacial cycles" graph in Wikipedia's "Timeline of glaciation" article) Felis silvestris lybica was domesticated; this domestic cat was so successful that it accompanied humans over a large area, greatly exceeding the original wild subspecies in range and numbers. When humankind nearly collapsed during the last Ice Age, Felis sylvestris lybica became essentially a feral, i.e. wild-reverted, subspecies, but still far more tameable than any other cat species or subspecies. Then beginning with the Holocene (i.e. present interglacial) ~10,000 yr ago, some individuals of F. s. lybica were redomesticated, giving rise to what we call F. s. catus.

Likewise these other exceedingly widespread and tameable mammalian species that Budiansky mentions, might be essentially feral subspecies from the last interglacial. In particular, the dog seems to have diverged from the wolf, mitochondrially, at about the end of the last interglacial. Apparently dogs were widespread during Cro-Magnon times ~33,000 years ago (the last relatively mild interlude within the "Wisconsin" Ice Age before the worst of that Ice Age suddenly hit) and again beginning with the sudden end of the Wisconsin Ice Age ~15,000 yr ago. The unrelatedness of the modern dogs and the Cro-Magnon dogs, might be because both were redomesticated separately from a 100,000 year-old feral subspecies of semi-tame wolf analogous to Felis silvestris lybica. Maybe these special wolves survive unidentified somewhere in the world, or maybe all of them have been caught and absorbed into modern dog breeds.

Be that as it may, my theory is that again and again we retame our domestic animals after catastrophes almost wipe out their populations so that only a scant but widespread feral population (such as, perhaps, Felis silvestris lybica) survives. These catastrophes would have had to be something more extreme, than a mere ice sheet advance or reduction of CO2 levels to 2/3 of what they are now.

Edited by - Joe Keller on 15 Feb 2012 17:33:41
Go to Top of Page

Jim

1815 Posts

Posted - 15 Feb 2012 :  17:53:57  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Dr Joe, Extinction might be related to CO2 levels because photosynthesis requires CO2. It might be some plants only thrive when CO2 levels are just right. Kill the plants and mammals will die and lots of mammals died out ~15,000 years ago. As to how ice age cycles occur; it is clear to me science has no clue as yet why ice comes and goes. As you might know it takes a lot of energy to run the ice cycle and no one has ever determined how much energy or why it flows one way for thousands of years and then reverses. This process has nothing to due with Earth's orbit or CO2.
Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
956 Posts

Posted - 15 Feb 2012 :  21:22:49  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Jim

Dr Joe, Extinction might be related to CO2 levels because photosynthesis requires CO2. It might be some plants only thrive when CO2 levels are just right. Kill the plants and mammals will die and lots of mammals died out ~15,000 years ago. As to how ice age cycles occur; it is clear to me science has no clue as yet why ice comes and goes. As you might know it takes a lot of energy to run the ice cycle and no one has ever determined how much energy or why it flows one way for thousands of years and then reverses. This process has nothing to due with Earth's orbit or CO2.



This is the best summary of the situation, that I've ever read. On careful consideration, I agree with every single thing you say here. The last sentence is an especially bold one and I agree with it!
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 72  Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page | Next Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Jump To:
Paradoxes Resolved, Origins Illuminated © © 2002-? Meta Research Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.77 seconds. Powered By: Snitz Forums 2000 Version 3.4.03