Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: common_sense_seeker on 16/09/2008 16:17:46
-
A recent TV programme would have us believe that Homo Erectus rafted across the treacherous Torres Strait to the Indonesian island of Flores about 800,000 years ago, who then dwarfed into 'hobbits'. I propose that a more logical alternative is that a temporary landbridge was created by the rising of the seabed due to a giant comet near-miss pulling on the Earth's inner core around 40,000 years ago. This is evidenced by the carbon-dated Siberian frozen mammoths found in standing positions within the permafrost, with undigested butercups and grasses in their stomachs.
Are any of you aware of the conundrum?
-
The mammoths relate to Flores how, exactly?
-
Such a seabed movement would have caused vast Tsunamis the evidence of which would be very visable today.
-
The mammoths relate to Flores how, exactly?
I'm suggesting that the comet went from Siberia, over Greenland, over the USA to California creating the La Brea Tar Pits, over the Pacific, over Hawaii, and finally over north east Australia, creating a 6km high rise of the lithosphere all the way. This not only allowed the peopling of Australia, but also the USA from the south west.
It's pretty far out, I know.
-
Such a seabed movement would have caused vast Tsunamis the evidence of which would be very visable today.
Good point. There is lots of evidence. See the chevrons of south Madagascar, 600 feet high formed by tsunamis. It was 40,000 years ago remember. That's a long time for the evidence to erode away.
-
The largest comets are only around 40-odd km in diameter - they'd be too small to have the gravitational effect you suggest and would, in any case, pass too quickly for anything to exploit the non-existent land-bridge.
Along with Evie, I can see no link between frozen Siberian mammoths and Flores - how is the one evidence of the other?
-
The mammoths relate to Flores how, exactly?
I'm suggesting that the comet went from Siberia, over Greenland, over the USA to California creating the La Brea Tar Pits, over the Pacific, over Hawaii, and finally over north east Australia, creating a 6km high rise of the lithosphere all the way. This not only allowed the peopling of Australia, but also the USA from the south west.
It's pretty far out, I know.
So, how does the comet (and subsequent crustal uplift/deformation) explain mammoths being found upright in permafrost?
-
Never mind the Hobbits, how did the trolls get there?
-
Velikovsky lives!
-
The largest comets are only around 40-odd km in diameter - they'd be too small to have the gravitational effect you suggest
Not so, I've been in contact with a professor who's written a book on comets, and he said that it was perfectly possible for a giant comet near-miss, just very unlikely in his opinion.
-
Velikovsky lives!
The professor also said that because of Velikovsky's wild claims, the whole subject of giant comets became taboo for the professional community.
-
Evie said "So, how does the comet (and subsequent crustal uplift/deformation) explain mammoths being found upright in permafrost?"
Good question. I propose that the only explanation is that earthquakes liquified the soil, entrapping the mammoths. The landmass then rose by around 6km into the freezing air temperatures above. The slow sinking back to equilibrium left the entombed animals to be discovered in the permafrost 40,000 years later. I also propose that Siberia was lush with vegetation during the summer, hence the reason why mammoths could be sustained there in the first place. I further propose that the giant comet near-miss pulled on the Earth's inner core which induced convection currents within the mantle. This meant less heat would reach the surface, so creating the last ice age.
-
Never mind the Hobbits, how did the trolls get there?
Hey, nice sense of humour. Who would have guessed?
-
To view a much more lively debate on this theory, visit Sciforums.com in the Astronomy section and also 'Gravity Problem Solved' in the Pseudoscience section.
-
I thought that the Homo Florensis (sp) people were tiny in proportion to any other person of their time or now in 2008.
Isn't the Island of Flores in the Indonesian Archipelago?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_floresiensis
BTW Homo is latin for Human
-
Isn't it in the Azores?
Quote (The Revenge; an old epic poem by Tennyson)
"At Flores in the Azores, Sir Richard Grenville lay"
Had to learn it at School!
-
This is the Indonesian island near the island of Komodo, of giant lizard fame. When you see it on Google Earth it doesn't seem that far from the Australian mainland.
-
For Tennyson enthusiasts
http://www.online-literature.com/short.php/726?term=the revenge&no_ck_c=0
-
I don't remember the Hobbits going to Flores! Was this during the quest for the one ring?
-
And he said "fight on fight on", tho' his vessel was all but a wreck"
-
To view a much more lively debate on this theory, visit Sciforums.com in the Astronomy section and also 'Gravity Problem Solved' in the Pseudoscience section.
Stop calling it a theory; theories have to make sense.
-
The evidence of a giant tsunami wouldnt erode away, it would get covered up by sediment decaying matter etc waiting for the day 40,000 years later for someone to come along a dig it up.
-
Maybe it just needs someone to do that then. The tsunami wave produced from a comet ocean impact would be totally different to the wave produced from an uplift of the ocean floor incidentally. The guano mud flow of the Great Cave of Niah, Borneo dated to 40,000 B.P is evidence of such a long-period wave in my opinion.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/a03r258177025458
References for the temporary land bridge hypothesis between the American continent and Australasia due to a giant comet near-miss pulling on the Earth's inner core of dark matter around 40,000 B.P are:
http://www.news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/430944.stm
http://www.centerfirstamericans.org/research.php
http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Siberian_American_Aborigines
-
Just to add to the fun Flores is nowhere near the Torres straight, it is part of a long chain of islands in Indonesia seperated by fairly narrow stretches of water. It is several hundred miles away from the Torres straight which separates Papua New Guinea from Australia.
-
It's definitely next to a treacherous stretch of water. A TV documentary tried to re-enact the 800,000 year ago(!) raft building and then crossing by Homo Erectus. They had no chance, and were taken miles south and off course. Hence my 40,000 year ago land bridge proposal seems more likely in my opinion, when they were already dwarfed down to hobbit size.
-
You think that, because a TV doccumentary crew couldn't make it the ancients couldn't?
Do you realise that's a complete non sequitur? It didn't occur to you that the TV crew's parents and grandparents hadn't been fishing in those waters?
-
Very funny. The main point to note is that the very idea of homo erectus boat-building 800,000 years ago is preposterous. It goes against all other scientific trends of early hominid abilities. It's way off! A temporary land bridge makes a lot more sense, as well as for the colonisation of Australia around 40,000 B.P by early man. Science is about detective work. You have to think like Sherlock Holmes.
-
I don't remember the Hobbits going to Flores! Was this during the quest for the one ring?
Paul that was the media's name for these people. Because the
Lord of the Rings trilogy was being filmed at the time.
Yes that is Tolkein's story.
-
I should really say homo floresiensis instead of 'hobbits' of course.
-
Sherlock Holmes and the Hobbit, hey? Care to add any more fictional characters in support of your ideas?
Anyway, while a land bridge might be a reasonable explanation for some things, for example the UK was previously connected to mainland Europe, the idea of a land bridge that suddenly popped up then went away again is preposterous. If it had happened, the water rushing away from it as it rose would wipe out anything living for hundreds of miles. There would be nothing alive to cross the temporary bridge.
Please stop wasting bandwith with dross like this.
-
That's a poor argument. It was 40,000 years ago, and the land bridge could have remained for hundreds of years before the lithosphere returned to it's normal shape. Nobody has done the calculations yet, that's all.
-
It's a perfectly valid argument; if you are proposing that a comet (which moves fast) caused a rise in the land level and drew the land up through the sea, the sea would have had to get out of the way fast. Hundreds of years isn't the issue here.
That's a lot of fast water so it would have washed stuff away.
Rather than saying that nobody has done the maths, why don't you do it?
Scared it would prove you wrong?
Let me help you with a start- it is known that when the earth is moved suddenly by earthquakes it settles down to a great exrtent in a few seconds. The aftershocks are also events with timescales in seconds. There's no reason to supose that your tweaked landbridge would last longer.
Of course there's another problem with your idea; if the gravity of this commet was big enough to atract the land, it would have attracted the water even more. The water would have got deeper rather than shallower.
-
You're really not thinking about this. I can tell. BTW the Moon traverses at a very slow rate across the sky. A first thought the speed of the traverse will not give anything different to a lift of land which would produce very long-period waves compared to the short-period waves of comet ocean impacts for example. You knowledge of the many scientific events leading to a flexure of the lithosphere is too limited for you to comment effectively. Any readers should consider reading the definitive book on the subject "A Flexure Of The Lithosphere".
-
"You're really not thinking about this. "
That would make two of us.
I grant you I'm not thinking very hard about it.
All I have to do is realise that, if the commet were not traveling at (at least) escape velocity, it would still be here.
That means it's going fast.
That means it has to exert any effect quickly.
That means the effect in turn will be quick.
Shifting a sea quickly will trash everything in the area.
You still haven't explained how only the land rises, but the sea says obligingly down out of the way anyway so your theory is still a bit pants.
-
Everything probably was affected by the event. I am proposing that the land rose very quickly to a great height. Continents probably were inundated by waves of seawater. Nature recovers very quickly. The only problem with the theory is proving that a giant comet fly-by could create this large flexure of the lithosphere. I´m carefully considering the case of the Sun´s gravity gradient and the amount of force produced. I think that this alone wouldn´t be enough to create the observed flexure. I have to show this mathematically of course, which is my current task.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_force
-
"The only problem with the theory is proving that a giant comet fly-by could create this large flexure of the lithosphere."
Not quite.
One point we have made in the past is that we know how strong gravity is and we know how stiff rocks are so we know how much a comet would lift the lithosphere, and it's not enough.
"I´m carefully considering the case of the Sun´s gravity gradient and the amount of force produced. I think that this alone wouldn´t be enough " Well spotted; how many times did we need to tell you that?
However there's still another problem. Water is less stiff than rock so you wouldn't make a land bridge- you would make a tidal surge.
-
"The only problem with the theory is proving that a giant comet fly-by could create this large flexure of the lithosphere."
Not quite.
One point we have made in the past is that we know how strong gravity is and we know how stiff rocks are so we know how much a comet would lift the lithosphere, and it's not enough.
"I´m carefully considering the case of the Sun´s gravity gradient and the amount of force produced. I think that this alone wouldn´t be enough " Well spotted; how many times did we need to tell you that?
However there's still another problem. Water is less stiff than rock so you wouldn't make a land bridge- you would make a tidal surge.
You just don´t understand the subtlety of what I´m proposing. BTW The period of this giant comet is 37,000 years, which I have deduced from the sediment core data of the North Atlantic by Bond & Lotti.
-
You just don´t understand the subtlety of what I´m proposing.
I think you are confusing 'subtlety' with 'vagueness' or 'lack of substance', actually.
-
You just don´t understand the subtlety of what I´m proposing.
I think you are confusing 'subtlety' with 'vagueness' or 'lack of substance', actually.
And your another one who doesn´t understand the subtlety. It´s as simple as that.
-
How long did you think that the force of this comet's near miss was applied for?
Are you familiar with the concept of 'Impulse'? That is Force times time.
The actual damage achieved by the passage would depend upon both force and time it was acting for. The scenario you describe would involve a very short time for the event so the force would have to be incredibly high. Just how close and what would the mass have to be? Have you ever done the sums? (Or are they too subtle for you?)
-
I understand subtlety perfectly well. The problem is that you don't understand science.
Your conjecture does not match with observation and is therefore wrong, no matter how subtle it is.
"The period of this giant comet is 37,000 years, which I have deduced from the sediment core data of the North Atlantic by Bond & Lotti. "
I don't know a lot about that data, but I know you are wrong. A comet that regularly flew by the earth and orbited the sun would have a chaotic orbit because the earth keeps moving relative to the sun.
That, btw, is a subtle effect.
-
And your another one
Is that the possessive adjective "your" or the abbreviated clause "you're"?
There's a subtle difference.
-
Pullin' me up on typos is a joke. Who cares? You've both made loads yourselves.
BC, I have taken the recurring orbit into consideration. The 77,000 B.P fly-by wouldn't have been so close, but would have still affected the convection currents, and so would have induced an ice-age in my opinion. One of the first major comets recorded in history was the 1150 B.C sighting by the chinese. I've even concluded that this was my comet, actually seen by the human eye in recent history.
The mathematical proof is underway in another forum which incorporates TeX language. But this must sound all double-dutch to you two. Just wait and see.
-
A link would be good.
-
I'm waiting. What will I see?
-
If it was good I'm sure we would have a link by now.
-
If it was good I'm sure we would have a link by now.
You two don't even go to the links provided. You're way behind to start contemplating Heinrich events.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_event
Note that I am convinced that ice core data analysis is flawed, due to "Tree Ring Psychology". It has been assumed that alternate bands in the ice core are laid annually. This may be true in recent times, but I believe could be erroneous for later dates. Due to the evidence of Hapgood's mammoth data, I don't believe the ice sheets existed before around 37,000 B.P. This is shown in the Bond & Lotti sediment sea core analysis. The delay between this and my proposed comet event of 40,000 B.P is due to the time taken for the induced convection to reach the crust from the core. Hence there is a global warming/cooling cycle over an approximate 2000-3000 year period.
-
And what is induced convection? What force keeps it going in such a viscous medium as the Earth's mantle? How would a single impulse have any effect?
When are you going to stop bringing in red herrings?
-
I particularly like "This may be true in recent times, but I believe could be erroneous for later dates." as an explanation. I guess that, like the link, we will just have to wait.
-
And what is induced convection? What force keeps it going in such a viscous medium as the Earth's mantle? How would a single impulse have any effect?
When are you going to stop bringing in red herrings?
The Penguin book 'An Introduction To Geology' states that the convection currents induced in the Earth's interior by the Moon keeps the planet from overheating. This is the type of convection current I am talking about.
BTW It was the Babylonians who recorded the comet event of 1140 B.C and stated that it lit up sky like day and had a tail like that of a scorpion.
-
CSS...I cannot find that book listed on the Penguin website or in any library catalogue I have checked (which is several). Would you happen to have an ISBN number or some other information like publish date, editors/authors, etc.?
Thanks!
-
Never mind the ISBN, tell us what it says about the answer to the question. What drives the convection currents?
-
CSS...I cannot find that book listed on the Penguin website or in any library catalogue I have checked (which is several). Would you happen to have an ISBN number or some other information like publish date, editors/authors, etc.?
Thanks!
The author is David Rothery.
Title: Geology
London, Teach Yourself series
ISBN 0340958790
Not Penguin after all. It was almost a year ago.
-
Never mind the ISBN, tell us what it says about the answer to the question. What drives the convection currents?
Try reading the above mentioned book. It's due to the gravity gradient of the Moon acting on the Earth's interior and revolving around it once a month. My theory of an exotic inner core with a higher force of gravitational attraction would exaggerate this effect. I propose that the near-miss of a giant comet could similarly create significant convection currents which would create global cooling.
-
No I won't.
You have a copy- you can type an excerpt from it more easily than I can get a copy.
Anyway, please explain how this avoids the problems I mentioned earlier. How come the ground moved but the water didn't and how did anything survive a flood that makes Noah's look like a puddle left by an unhousebroken puppy?
I forgot to add that we don't need to consider plasma or Bose-Einstein condensates here.
Does anyone know why I mentioned them?
-
Anyway, please explain how this avoids the problems I mentioned earlier. How come the ground moved but the water didn't and how did anything survive a flood that makes Noah's look like a puddle left by an unhousebroken puppy?
This comment shows that you don't understand the standard scientific theory of the tides. You haven't bothered to look into the easy-to-read Wikipedia links given to you. You don't understand the gravity gradient explanation of the ocean tides. This is not my new theory, it's the current standard theory! Your scientific ability appears to be quite low, and I doubt whether you've ever had a scientific job in your life. You're probably just an enthusiast and if so, should admit it.
-
I wonder whether css actually read the whole of the wiki link plus the comments. The rotation of the Moon and Earth around their barycentre is discussed.
I have a real problem with the 'vector' diagram with the big red arrows on the wiki page. It seems to imply that two forces in one direction can produce a smaller force. Does anyone else have views on that?
I have actually done some (numerical) calculations, using the masses, distances and time periods of the Moon-Earth system. There is a difference in gravitational forces at the nearest and furthest points on Earth from the Moon. There is also a difference in the centripetal force affecting the water on the near and far sides. The sum of the forces on the far side from the moon is a bit less than the force towards the centre of Earth at the poles. The sum of forces on the near side comes to virtually the same as for the far side. (less than the Polar G in both cases). I assumed a spherical Earth, for simplicity.
I don't see how it is possible to ignore the centripetal effect as it is of a similar order to the effect of gravity gradient. Even MY sums can't be that far wrong.
There is a very similar situation for a satellite in orbit around the Earth. The CM of the satellite has balanced forces on it - so it goes in a circle. The satellite always presents its lower face to the Earth so it is rotating on an axis once every orbit (just like the Moon does).
But the 'lower' side of the satellite is closer to Earth (more G field) and going slower than it would have to in order to stay in orbit at this height - it experiences a pull down. The 'upper' side is going round faster than necessary - will be 'thrown out' a bit and it is further away, so the G field will be a bit less. The result is a difference in actual acceleration across the depth of the craft.
This is why we say that life in a satellite is 'in microgravity' and not in totally 'weightless' conditions. You would have two tidal bulges if you could arrange for a spherical balloon full of water to be suspended in the middle of a satellite.
-
I have lost interest in this.
I have mention, in passing, the massive problem of the (about 5) states of matter.
Css
explain why the air is still here or go away.
Thanks btw for the second best joke I have heard in a while.
"Your scientific ability appears to be quite low, and I doubt whether you've ever had a scientific job in your life. You're probably just an enthusiast and if so, should admit it. "
Feel free to evince that slander.
BTW
many of us are more interested in you giving real evidence than in my qualifications.
-
How does it feel to be a thicky, BC? I must say I feel pretty humble about all this. I wish it had all been explained to me so well years ago. I would not have fallen into the trap of believing the Science I have been taught.
I guess I shall have to listen to more of these new theories and the may clear up all the unexplained mysteries of the Universe.
Pity, though. I was just getting the hang of this Newtonian stuff.
-
How does it feel to be a thicky, BC?
I don't know- perhaps I should ask someone. Any suggestions?
For those who have forgotten, here's CSS's theory from the opening post.
"I propose that a more logical alternative is that a temporary landbridge was created by the rising of the seabed due to a giant comet near-miss pulling on the Earth's inner core around 40,000 years ago."
I'm probably too thick to understand any explanation of how the stiff rocks moved, but the runny water stayed still. Even if I could get to grips with that there's little hope of me understanding how the atmosphere wasn't stripped by this cometary fly-by.
Worse still, I don't', so it seems to CSS, understand the accepted theory where the rocks stay still and the water sloshes about. I'm too thick to see how its the same as CSS's theory where the water only moves because the rocks (in their famously mobile, lively state) push the water about.
Perhaps I will never understand all this.
Does anyone else?
-
No. I must be just as thick as you, BC.
I wonder what we have both missed.
-
How does it feel to be a thicky, BC?
I don't know- perhaps I should ask someone. Any suggestions?
For those who have forgotten, here's CSS's theory from the opening post.
"I propose that a more logical alternative is that a temporary landbridge was created by the rising of the seabed due to a giant comet near-miss pulling on the Earth's inner core around 40,000 years ago."
I'm probably too thick to understand any explanation of how the stiff rocks moved, but the runny water stayed still. Even if I could get to grips with that there's little hope of me understanding how the atmosphere wasn't stripped by this cometary fly-by.
Worse still, I don't', so it seems to CSS, understand the accepted theory where the rocks stay still and the water sloshes about. I'm too thick to see how its the same as CSS's theory where the water only moves because the rocks (in their famously mobile, lively state) push the water about.
Perhaps I will never understand all this.
Does anyone else?
The rock of the earth's crust becomes flexible when sufficiently high forces are applied. It's the same idea as during an earthquake or the fact that a glacier can cause the crust to sink due to the extra weight. Incidentally, the uplift which caused the oceanbed to rise above sea level to create a temporary land bridge would also have created a massive upwelling of nutrients from the ocean floor. Is this one of the reasons that early man flourished around this time? Hugging the coastline would have provided man with a bounty of shellfish for example.