Ice Age Beasts Blasted from Space

ianare writes "Eight tusks and a bison skull all show signs of having being blasted with iron-nickel fragments, typical meteorite material. Raised, burnt surface rings trace the point of entry of high-velocity projectiles; and the punctures are on only one side, consistent with a blast coming from a single direction. But the team was astonished to find the animal remains were about 35,000 years old, rather than from the known impact of 13,000 years ago."

Comments

Cool

[usul294]

Maybe they were exposed 13,000 years ago and got dusted by meteorites?

Re:Cool

[gardyloo]

Except that the article states that there was healing around some of the holes, indicating the animal was alive for at least a while after getting "dusted".

Re:Cool

[Boogaroo]

I am not scientist, but I would guess that remains sitting there for 22,000 years would likely have been buried and unlikely to have been peppered by meteorite fragments.
Also, fossilized remains probably wouldn't have the maleability of bone to give you impact shockwaves without causing either shattering or other obvious signs of the impact occuring after fossilization.

Re:Cool

[RuBLed]

Zombiesaurs...

(Hey why isn't there a movie about dinosaur zombies yet?)

Re:Cool

[cyphercell]

first we need time traveling dinosaur hunting people to go back in time and deliver the virus, hey wait a minute...

I for one would like welcome our new time traveling, zombie, dinosaur hunting overlords. (don't eat me)

Re:Cool

[sobachatina]

How about time traveling alien dinosaur slave hunters? http://imdb.com/title/tt0113135/ The most painful MST3K ever.

Re:Cool

[CrimsonAvenger]

(Hey why isn't there a movie about dinosaur zombies yet?)

Don't know, but there is a book where a zombie dinosaur (Sue, in fact) plays a (if you'll excuse the pun) big part. One of the Harry Dresden books, whose name I forget.

Re:Cool

[NoPantsJim]

Good idea but probly wouldn't make a good movie. The reason zombies are scary is because humans generally don't chase down and eat other humans.

Dinosaurs don't need to be zombies to chase down and eat humans. If they were zombies, I suppose they would chase each other and eat members of the same species.

Wow, fighting zombie dinosaurs, maybe that would be an awesome movie.

Re:Cool

[Anonymous Coward]

It's probably only a matter of time before SciFi makes another 'SciFi Original Movie' (aka crappy B flick) about genetically engineered evil ninja zombie dinosaurs from the moon, or something like that.

Re:Cool

[pnewhook]

Also, fossilized remains probably wouldn't have the maleability of bone to give you impact shockwaves without causing either shattering or other obvious signs of the impact occuring after fossilization.

They're only 35000 years old - they are not fossils! They are simply old remains and are still bones, not rock.

Re:Cool

[Viceroy Potatohead]

Finally, we have it!!!!!

2. ???^WZombiesaurs

Re:Cool

[Anonymous Coward]

I am not scientist

Well then STFU. Only real scientists post on /.

Re:Cool

[Beriaru]

I'm sure there's some porn related around. Let me google it...

Re:Cool

[xPsi]

(Hey why isn't there a movie about dinosaur zombies yet?) They did. It was called Woodstock

Re:Cool

[Anonymous Coward]

The Sound of Thunder should have been very popular. Didn't it seem like a video game waiting to be made to you?

Re:Cool

[bytesex]

Zombiesaurs from space, man ! From space !

Re:Cool

[HateBreeder]

A movie? I don't know about that.

But I'm sure there's porn for it.

Re:Cool

[Lispy]

Basically because you are more creative than the whole bunch of hollywood writers. Don't be proud, it's not that hard. :)

Re:Cool

[Hognoxious]

Basically because you are more creative than the whole bunch of hollywood writers.

Are they still on strike? Not that it matters, you're correct in either case.

Re:Cool

[BigDogCH]

They're only 35000 years old - they are not fossils! They are simply old remains and are still bones, not rock.

They are still considered "fossils" by most definitions. A fossil can be either the remains, a cast of the remains, a mold of the remains, or just an impression (like a footprint, or tooth mark). Technically, a fossil is usually considered "any evidence of past life", so even finding an old bowl or club would count.

Coprolites are a good example of a "fossil" that doesn't fit the normal idea.

Re:Cool

[SatanicPuppy]

Dead Beat

Re:Cool

[pnewhook]

They are still considered "fossils" by most definitions. A fossil can be either the remains, a cast of the remains, a mold of the remains, or just an impression (like a footprint, or tooth mark). Technically, a fossil is usually considered "any evidence of past life", so even finding an old bowl or club would count.

No, to be considered a 'fossil', it would have to be 'fossilized'. Doesn't have to be rock, but preserved in some manner. A simple footprint or club is NOT a fossil, but a simple artifact. An old bone is not a fossil by any real scientific definition.

Re:Cool

[Liquid Len]

Oh yeah, I'm sure they didn't think of that before they published their work...

Re:Cool

[jamstar7]

With wrestlers.

Re:Cool

[Anonymous Coward]

Depends on your definition of fossil. While these remains have not been chemically replaced, they are certainly evidence of past life.

Re:Cool

[BigDogCH]

The series of tubes disagrees.

Re:Cool

[sgt_doom]

Also, fossilized remains probably wouldn't have the maleability ...

Hey....isn't "malleability" spelled with two "ls"???

Re:Cool

[pnewhook]

How?

1) Fossils (from Latin fossus, literally "having been dug up") are the mineralized or otherwise preserved remains or traces (such as footprints) of animals, plants, and other organisms. ...

A remnant, impression, or trace of an organism of past geologic ages that has been preserved in the earth's crust.

the remains of an animal or plant preserved in a rock

the preserved remains of living things

Naturally preserved remains or evidence of past life, such as bones, shells, casts, impressions, and trails.

The remains, trace, or imprint of a life form that has been preserved in an EarthMaterial, and that demonstrates evidence of having been changed from its original biogenic form. ...

How does this contradict what I said? Simply evidence of past life is not enough, otherwise anything older than about 50 years would be a fossil.

Re:Cool

[pnewhook]

Depends on your definition of fossil. While these remains have not been chemically replaced, they are certainly evidence of past life.

To be a fossil, the object must display a chemical change from its original form. Simple evidence of past life is not enough to call it a fossil, otherwise every one who dies is instantly a fossil. It must undergo the process of fossilization.

Re:Cool

[BigDogCH]

Notice, there are contradictions in these definitions, so some gray area exists. Notice also, the definitions you didn't paste confirm what I said.

Also notice, the tubes continue to agree with me. Preserved does not mean mineralized, or decomposed, or replaced.

"Simply evidence of past life is not enough, otherwise anything older than about 50 years would be a fossil."

An excellent point. At what point is something old enough to be considered "a fossil". I guess that is up to the person searching. There is no exact clear definition, but "evidence of past life" is the most broad and generally accepted. A fossil can indeed still be organic, but replacing the organics with minerals makes it easier to preserve. Any evidence of life though also counts, so a footprint from 10 minutes ago, if 'preserved' in some way, is then a fossil.

Hey! I remember that episode

[alshithead]

Wasn't that when the Enterprise went back in time and Captain Kirk made a hand held cannon that used primitive gunpowder and meteor fragments to blast the bad alien beasties?

Re:Hey! I remember that episode

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, you are mixing your episodes... Isn't that considered a serious faux pas around here? They did NOT go back in time for the episode where the captain had to go one on one against the Gorn Captain. That one was setup by an advanced race - the Metrons. There were time jumping episodes, but the one where he had to make gunpowder from raw sulphur, salt peter (or whatever - go ahead and correct me), etc. was definitely NOT a time jumping one.

However, I do believe this "Gorn" episode was the one that "Galaxy Quest" targeted (precisely) when they had "crewman number 6" (Guy) ask Commander Tagert if he could construct a "rudimentary lathe".

Damn. If you are going to invoke Trek - get it right!

Re:Hey! I remember that episode

[alshithead]

Dude, I know...I was trying to be funny. I pulled in time travel due the disparities in time of 13,000 years ago versus 35,000 years ago. And, the third ingredient for gunpowder would be charcoal and...wait for it...the projectiles for his cannon were raw diamonds if I remember correctly.

Re:Hey! I remember that episode

[David Gould]

And, the third ingredient for gunpowder would be charcoal Or ordinary coal.

Re:Hey! I remember that episode

[cheater512]

'whatever' in this instance is diamond powder. :)

Re:Hey! I remember that episode

[Anonymous Coward]

The Joke ---->
o
/|\ <---- You!
/ \

Re:Hey! I remember that episode

[Ed Avis]

In our universe, yes. But in a parallel universe there is certainly a Star Trek episode where Kirk goes back in time and makes a handmade cannon.

Re:Hey! I remember that episode

[genner]

Yeah sounds like something the evil mirror universe would do.

Re:Hey! I remember that episode

[Fear the Clam]

Yeah sounds like something the evil mirror universe would do.

That and make your ass look really big.

Re:Hey! I remember that episode

[alshithead]

"Or ordinary coal."

Right, but not extraordinary coal.

uhhmm

[TOI_0x00]

I have a red car, james has a red car... So james car is my car!

Re:uhhmm

[Enoxice]

Sounds like someone didn't do too well on the SATs.

Re:uhhmm

[Kohath]

Nice try James. We know it's you.

First Obvious Conclusion...

[explosivejared]

Is that these animals were innocent bystanders to the great Time War. This is clearly the result of a Time Lord sending a Dalek hurtling backwards in time. When it landed in the ice age, it tried to do its whole "EXTERMINATE!!" thing, but it's weaponry was on the fritz. "Peppered with meteorite fragments" smacks of being the victim of some malfunctioning Dalek weapon. So as you can clearly see, there is nothing see, so move along...

QED

Re:First Obvious Conclusion...

[geekoid]

Those animals were hardly innocent.

What About the Clovis?

[pln2bz]

I'm hoping that this is going to shift the discussion of the last extinction event *away* from the Clovis people finally. This can only be a good thing really as the theory is kind of a relic by now. From what I understand, there weren't even a large number of sites that included evidence of mammoth remains with evidence of human activity together, and a good number of those were certainly opportunistic situations. Mammoths are not exactly easy creatures to take out and the extinction event was unusual in its selectivity.

Re:What About the Clovis?

[explosivejared]

"For us the difficulty is that we see patterns but we don't understand what the underlying process is; so it becomes difficult to ascribe causation," he explained.

Therein lies the problem of ever ascribing certainty to any one event causing mass extinctions or any other climatological or biological shift. Earth is built with so many complex systems that it will almost always be a large combination of factors that result in change.

Re:What About the Clovis?

[G-funk]

Sssh! Is not! It's all our fault!

Or,

It's not our fault at all! The sun is getting hotter!

Earth goes through cycles, nothing we can do will change it!

etc etc

Re:What About the Clovis?

[pln2bz]

Therein lies the problem of ever ascribing certainty to any one event causing mass extinctions or any other climatological or biological shift. Earth is built with so many complex systems that it will almost always be a large combination of factors that result in change.

I'm kind of an unwanted celebrity around these parts because I have my own particular beliefs about what happened. To be honest, few people actually take the time to even dig into the issues in great depth. But it's a great subject though because the evidence is very specific; it's plentiful; and it's in fact *highly* enigmatic. There's something really wrong with the way that we teach science these days because had I learned about the evidence when I was younger, it would have inspired me to focus more heavily on getting a science degree (as opposed to engineering). People don't realize it, but the story of the extinction of the mammoths (and everything else) is one of the most fascinating mysteries out there, and the implications are pretty large. It's related to some of the biggest questions about the universe that people can even ask. The problem though is that the majority of scientists tend to treat the issue as if is settled, and they appear to be settling on some rather unlikely scenarios (like diseases).

Ginenthal in The Extinction of the Mammoths argues convincingly that the "mammoth steppe" did not exist. Mammoths did *not* live in a tundra environment. The extinction could not have occurred too long ago. 10,000 years is probably too long. 3,500 years ago might be a better estimate, because their tusks would not have been as preserved as well as they were if the tundra in which they are encased had melted, exposing the tusks to water. Many of the tusks were so pristine that they could be sold as ivory on the ivory market, and tusks will turn yellow and brown just like bone if exposed to water. But also, the mammoths could not have survived in a cold environment. Their shaggy manes would actually prevent them from walking through snow. There's really very little about their bodies that points to them being able to live in a cold environment. And the ecology of the tundra simply cannot support large mammals like that. The vegetation on the tundra would actually probably be toxic to them (as it is for other mammals) and we can tell from the contents of their stomachs and mouths that they were feeding on warm-weathered vegetation -- like from grasslands and forest-type areas. These details, combined, indicate pretty clearly that they existed in a warm climate, which most likely suddenly froze over.

How you attribute this catastrophic event, however, is the real question -- and this is where disagreement is completely legitimate and should in fact be encouraged. In fact, I think the best thing for the whole field of people who are studying this situation would be for them to abandon all of these highly speculative scenarios involving Clovis people and diseases and all of that, and completely switch over to creating some consensus that some sort of catastrophe occurred, and that it occurred relatively recently (around 3,500 years ago). The evidence for it seems to me quite strong, and has absolutely nothing to do with Creationism. If this new evidence points them into this overall direction, then it will be a *very* good thing because we need to start talking about what *kind* of catastrophes could have caused all of this mess.

Re:What About the Clovis?

[BeanThere]

That's pretty recent indeed; if we don't even know what caused such a catastrophe to occur, surely it's important to learn, as it might happen again.

Re:What About the Clovis?

[Valdrax]

Mammoths did *not* live in a tundra environment. [...] But also, the mammoths could not have survived in a cold environment. Their shaggy manes would actually prevent them from walking through snow. There's really very little about their bodies that points to them being able to live in a cold environment. And the ecology of the tundra simply cannot support large mammals like that. The vegetation on the tundra would actually probably be toxic to them (as it is for other mammals) and we can tell from the contents of their stomachs and mouths that they were feeding on warm-weathered vegetation -- like from grasslands and forest-type areas. These details, combined, indicate pretty clearly that they existed in a warm climate, which most likely suddenly froze over. Ooookay, then. How do you explain the 10,000 year old frozen baby mammoth carcass found in Siberia a few years ago, then? Also, how did they cross the land bridge into the Americas without being able to tolerate cold during the Ice Ages?

Re:What About the Clovis?

[T.E.D.]

I'm hoping that this is going to shift the discussion of the last extinction event *away* from the Clovis people finally. ... Mammoths are not exactly easy creatures to take out

Why are you so anxious to exonerate Clovis people? Not that I care much one way or the other, but it is an odd coincidence that all these large creatures exist for millions of years, then suddenly disappear relatively simultaniously with the arrival of humans. I generally don't believe in conincidence.

The implication that Clovis couldn't possibly have hunted the large mammals is particularly silly, as the thing that defines Clovis people is their toolset, which was adapted to the needs of hunting larger mammals. For instance, you are right that just shooting a normal arrow in a Mammoth wouldn't do much of anything. It takes a lot more than a pinprick for something that size bleed to death. But Clovis arrowheads and spearpoints had grooves cut in the edges. This would have made them not penetrate creatures as easily, but would help facilitate bleeding when they did. This special Clovis toolset disappeared when the big mammals did.

You can argue that Clovis people may not have been the precise cause of the demise of mammoths, but it is nearly inarguable that Clovis == Mammoth hunters.

Re:What About the Clovis?

[CFTM]

Interesting, this week I was watching the History Channel's TV show "Mega Disasters" and they were talking about comet impacts; some scientists are currently trying to determine if there was an actual catastrophic event that corresponded with "The Great Flood" which I believe is one of few myths that is almost completely universal among cultures (bear with me a little bit). According to the information provided by the TV Show (yeah yeah yeah, that's like using Wiki as a source I know :), they were arguing for a three mile comet to have impacted in the Indian Ocean about 4800 years ago. They were able to find a geologic structure that *COULD*, and I stress that word *COULD* because it yet to be proven, be an impact crater of enormous size (18 mile indent about 3000 meters under the ocean). According to the impact models, a comet of this size smacking in to our oceans would create three mile high waves that would wash over huge swathes of land and they were even able to find evidence of a massive tsunami hitting both Australia and Madagascar (and from that they triangulated a plausible location for the comet impact and it just so happened that there was a huge crater in there). Moreover, a huge amount of precipitation, ground particles and heat energy would be injected in to our atmosphere creating torrential down pours and some of the largest storms ever seen on earth.

So the years don't totally match but maybe there's some relationship between these events...
Just throwing an idea out there, IANAG

Re:What About the Clovis?

[pln2bz]

Charles Ginenthal talks a lot about this subject of Clovis people and mammoths. The mammoth's had incredibly thick whool, skin and fat beneath that skin. All combined, the three layers amounted to 15 inches of material! It's been demonstrated that even with iron spear-heads and elephants, it is very rare that a spear-head will penetrate an organ.

In order to kill mammoths with spear heads, you could not hope to strike an organ. You'd have to hope that it would bleed to death. Based upon an observation of elephants, this means that the animal would run from you for 10, 20 -- who knows how many -- miles before it would bleed to death. Without horses, that's pretty difficult to pull off. It makes sense that it could happen occasionally, but it doesn't make much sense that the creature was obliterated *because* of that technique.

When you consider that the extinction was selective, and that some of the creatures left behind (like the musk oxen) were very easy to drive to extinction (because their defensive circle will fall apart if one is killed, and they'll *allow* themselves to become slaughtered), then you realize that the idea that the Clovis decided to specifically slaughter the mammoths -- the most difficult ones to kill off -- is speculative.

Re:What About the Clovis?

[Lord Ender]

So you ruled out the possibility of hunting parties hitting the suckers with ten spears at once? How'd ya manage that?

Re:What About the Clovis?

[hxftw]

Perhaps a worldwide flood, in the days of Noah?

Re:What About the Clovis?

[pln2bz]

I won't go much into what I believe happened, as it's a bit stranger than what you mention here. But, I will say this: I would be very wary of blindly accepting this notion that craters can only be the result of either volcanoes or physical impacts. And the reason I say this is because of the Deep Impact Mission. Around 1995, we shot an impactor at around 23,000 mph (6.3 miles per second) at comet Tempel 1. What was expected to happen based upon the physical impact model was a single flash. But, what in fact happened were two consecutive flashes. Considering that this is one of the best experiments we have to date for what happens in collisions like this, we'd be very wise to carefully consider the root cause of these two distinct flashes.

A man named Wallace Thornhill actually predicted that there would be two separate flashes based upon the notion that the comet was a charged body in space that possessed a different charge from the probe's impactor. As the two objects approached one another, they essentially charge-neutralized prior to imapact (like your finger charge-neutralizing with the doorknob before contact).

Thornhill got many other aspects of the mission right too, but this is the one that interests us here. The entire astrophysical world considers Thornhill a heretic of sorts, and they *dismissed* his accurate prediction based upon disagreement with what his theory says. And I'll leave it up to you as to whether or not you want to look into that further. Instead, they claimed that the layer of dust on the comet induced a "post-impact" flash, but anybody can do the math. At 6.3 miles per second, the dust layer would have to be impossibly thick in order to distinguish the two separate flashes.

But, the point is that that experiment demonstrated to us that we should carefully consider the idea that bodies in space are not electrically neutral. When you dig into the issue further, you come to realize that quasi-neutrality -- the idea that a given volume of space will contain equal numbers of positive and negative charge -- is in fact an assumption within astrophysics.

Just a couple of days ago, the THEMIS mission (which is studying the aurora) observed a "magnetic rope" as wide as the Earth connecting the Sun and the Earth. The significance of this will completely escape most people because few people actually understand much of what happens within a plasma physics laboratory. But, plasmas can behave as either a fluid or an electrodynamic phenomenon, depending on their charge density. In the laboratory, *electrical* plasmas will tend to form filaments of charged particles. These filaments possess long-range attraction and short-range repulsion with other filaments. The end result is that they will become braided just like rope, and like any current we've ever observed, they will be surrounded by magnetic fields. Space is completely filled with matter in the plasma state, so it's a very serious question.

What you may not realize is that there is a very long historical context for discussing the electrical nature of space plasmas. It's essentially a taboo subject within astrophysics, and the conversations become *extremely* heated. I take ridicule for discussing it here on these forums on a daily basis. But if you are observing striking morphological similarities between electrical plasmas within a plasma laboratory and space plasmas, then does it make sense to assume that it is a coincidence? To be honest, that's not very scientific. What's really happening is that observations like this magnetic rope are very potentially paradigm-shattering observations that cast doubt upon the assumption of quasi-neutrality. And this is a *very* big deal because quasi-neutrality is required to model space plasmas as fluids. If space plasmas as in fact electrodynamic phenomenon (like they behave in the lab), then you are basically changing the dominant force in the universe from gravity to electricity. It's just too shocking for astrophysicists and many people to accept

Re:What About the Clovis?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, as someone who lives and spends every day in the arctic in Alaska I was attempting to follow you until this:

But also, the mammoths could not have survived in a cold environment. Their shaggy manes would actually prevent them from walking through snow

This is absolute rubbish.

There are many modern examples of mammals that are fairly large and have no problem living on the tundra. Muskoxen have "shaggy" coats and don't seem have trouble with snow. I would say that a pretty shaggy coat is a good thing when it is -80F. Caribou also do very well feeding on the tundra. Neither of the things you listed would prevent a mammoth sized creature from living on the tundra.

Re:What About the Clovis?

[pln2bz]

I don't mind typing in this stuff. From "The Extinction of the Mammoth" by Charles Ginenthal ...

On what basis, then, is it thought that mammoths were animals that could tolerate extremely cold climates? The usual evidence proposed for this supposition were fully outlined and answered by Hans Kraus in his privately published book, "The Mammoth in Ice and Snow".

"Kraus shows that none of the eight characteristics of the mammoth that have been cited as evidence for adaptation to cold is either a valid or reliable index. The characteristics include small ears, long curved tusks, short legs, long hair and thick skin, short tail, anal flap, fat hump, and thick layer of fat beneath the skin.

"For example, the short ears, short legs and short tail are unreliable indicators because they do not vary consistently with latitude in comparison among rabbits and foxes. That is, a rabbit in a cold climate can have a larger ear than one in a warmer climate, when the opposite would be expected. (Kraus, pp. 16b-25.) The curved tusks which allegedly were used to clear snow during winter foraging, show abrasion comparable to tusks of present-day elephants which do not engage in shoveling activity. (Kraus, pp. 26-33.) No living arctic mammal relies on subcutaneous fat for insulation. Land animals tested in the middle of winter possessed no thermally significant layer of fat beneath the skin. (P.F. Scholander, et al, "Body Insulation of Some Arctic and Tropical Mammals and Birds," Biological Bulletin, Vol. 99 (1950), pp. 232-233, 266 cited in Kraus, pp. 92-94). Unlike the mammoth, no hoofed grazing animals in the arctic today have shaggy leg hair which would interfere with movement through snow. Contemporary grazing arctic animals with short leg hair are able to minimize heat loss by lowering the temperature of their legs by controlling both the flow and temperature of blood in them. (Kraus, pp. 53-60)

"As [one of] the largest living, grazing arctic land animals -- and in contrast to the mammoth -- the caribou possesses both hair erector muscles and sebaceous glands. (Kraus, p. 52) The mammoth's alleged adaptation to cold is a misconceived conclusion, unsupported by the facts." (quote from C Leroy, "Replies," KRONOS, Vol. VII, No. 4, (Summer 1982), pp. 73-74.)

You state ...

There are many modern examples of mammals that are fairly large and have no problem living on the tundra. Muskoxen have "shaggy" coats and don't seem have trouble with snow. I would say that a pretty shaggy coat is a good thing when it is -80F. Caribou also do very well feeding on the tundra. Neither of the things you listed would prevent a mammoth sized creature from living on the tundra.

Compare an image of a musk oxen ...

http://www.saskschools.ca/~gregory/arctic/Amuskox.html

To a mammoth ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammoth

The mammoth hair (which is actually around 8 inches thick) extends down to the feet and the musk oxen's hair doesn't extend that far.

Even if we still disagree, though, what did the mammoths eat? In order to support herds of that beast, there must exist nutritious biomass to support those herds. Each animal would have consumed something like 200 lbs of vegetation every single day. What cold-growing plant can generate those amounts while its roots cannot penetrate the ice beneath the ground?

I think Ginenthal makes some great points. He's gathered a lot of disparate facts from multiple disciplines that when considered together do a pretty good job of explaining the current state of understanding of what happened.

Re:What About the Clovis?

[Anonymous Coward]

"In order to kill mammoths with spear heads, you could not hope to strike an organ. You'd have to hope that it would bleed to death."

What about poison. The kalahari bushmen use poison to bring down very large animals (such as giraffe) using very primitive weapons. One would imagine with all the poisonous flora you say was around, a little poison would not be hard to find.

Your arguments are exceedingly week.

Re:What About the Clovis?

[nuuvario]

There's just so many problems with this... Listen, I don't profess to be an expert in mammoth or mastadon physiology, but I've spent a lot of time in the paleocliamte realm, and at certain universities considered experts in mammoth and mastadon paleontology. And you're right that there's a HUGE scientific 'mystery' surrounding the extinction of the mammoths (really, all the ice-age land mammals), and whether or not it was due to humans or climate. The thing is, most scientists who pay attention do NOT treat the issue as settled. Most (a generalization, sure) scientists would attribute the extinction to some sort of combination of anthropogenic stressors and climate-induced changes in food webs and related physiologic stress. 3,500 years ago as the extinction date? Only for relict populations on isolated islands -- maybe. Very little about their bodies enabling them to survive in cold environments? Just not true. Their whole set-up, their whole physiology, is a testament to evolution and the adaptation of the mammoth to a cold-weather environment. Mammoth and mastadon ears are TINY. Their feet are like snowshoes. Their hair keeps them warm (prevent them from walking in the snow???). Their tusks provide an excellent tool to scrape snow away and off of plants. As for the tundra -- maybe you're getting hung up on the tundra idea. Let's presume that much of the mammoth's environment wasn't so much tundra as it was grassland. You ever been to Nebraska in the winter? Plenty for a mammoth to eat. Not even that much snow. And it's COLD. Oh god, the cold. And the wind... Anyway, my point is this (that Ginenthal nonwithstanding): yes, big scientific unknown. Not settled by any means. LIkely humans and climate (see australia for a good example of human-induced extinctions). Your evidence for mammoth geographic and climatic preferences is highly suspect, if not downright erroneous.

so *that's* where buffalo nickles came from

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, I got nothing.

Blasted from?

[biocute]

According to the friendly article, these animals were clearly blasted with space debris, not blasted from space.

Luckily I brought a spare underwear to work today, because I seriously wet my pants reading the headline, thinking some intelligently designed beasts lived in some remote planets, and were blasted into earth after their home planet exploded.

Re:Blasted from?

[doi]

Obviously they were nuked from orbit. It was the only way to be sure.

Re:Blasted from?

[Anonymous Coward]

LMAO.. me too.. it was a cool heading :)

Re:Blasted from?

[TigerTime]

And here I was thinking "Ice Age Beasts Blasted from Space" was a B rated movie that is coming out of Hollywood.

Charles Fort and others wrote about this

[Anonymous Coward]

Charles Fort and other people have written about this one. Some of the fragments resemble 'bullets'... so this is not the only example of this phenomenon.

Re:Charles Fort and others wrote about this

[TimSSG]

Maybe it was like this Sci-Fi authors Ryk E. Spoor and Eric Flint wrote in the book Boundary. Link to the first 1/4 of the book. http://www.webscription.net/chapters/1416509321/1416509321.htm?blurb Great book I liked it; I am still waiting to see if aliens wipe out the dinosaurs. Hope book two is out in the near future. Tim S

Blast from the Past...

[davidsyes]

So, were they blasted INTO space our OUT BY space objects?

Did they find any Sleestaks, or other creatures from Land of the Lost?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_of_the_Lost_(1974_TV_series)

http://www.landofthelost.com/

1,000,000,000 to 1

[mastershake_phd]

Small meteors hit the earth all the time, its a long shot but maybe this animal was just in the wrong place place at the wrong time.

Re:1,000,000,000 to 1

[morgan_greywolf]

Hey! I just got hit by a small meteor, you insensitive clod! Ouch!

Re:1,000,000,000 to 1

[da_foz]

That would be pretty impressive...considering so far they have seven tusks and a skull that show the impact marks. If it was one animal that would be one hell of a large skull. Maybe something like this but even bigger: http://www.geekroar.com/film/archives/rotk_war_elephants.jpg

Re:1,000,000,000 to 1

[Prof.Phreak]

Or from scientist's perspective, it was in the right place at the right time.

Re:1,000,000,000 to 1

[ackthpt]

Small meteors hit the earth all the time, its a long shot but maybe this animal was just in the wrong place place at the wrong time.

Small meteors usually don't make it to the ground with enough velocity to knock over a blade of grass.

Re:1,000,000,000 to 1

[Anonymous Coward]

The animal was apparently impacted on its side, indicating a lateral trajectory. A meteor would not come it at such a shallow angle. It is far more likely that the animal was exposed to the lateral blast due to a large impact.

Re:1,000,000,000 to 1

[Faylone]

Looks like they're not happy with you linking that image directly.

Re:1,000,000,000 to 1

[nicklott]

from the the summary:

Eight tusks and a bison skull An eight tusked Bison in the wrong place at the wrong time?

from TFA:

The ancient remains [tusks] come from Alaska, but researchers also have a Siberian bison skull with the same pockmarks.

Re:1,000,000,000 to 1

[vtcodger]

***Small meteors usually don't make it to the ground with enough velocity to knock over a blade of grass.***

A bit more than that I think. Terminal velocity in fact. Bigger pieces have enough MV^2 to punch through the roof of a house or the trunk metal on a car -- both have happened. Smaller pieces -- probably enough to puncture the skin and maybe enough to penetrate a bone. Apparently enough to embed themselves in tooth enamel. People have been injured and even killed by bullets fired into the air -- some of which have penetrated skulls.

The thinking behind all this looks to have a way to go. In order for fragments of an object to strike sites in both Siberia and Michigan simultaneously, it would have to break up at an altitude of several thousand kilometers -- way above the atmosphere -- would it not? And if that happened, the small pieces would, under normal circumstances, burn up in the atmosphere, no?

Maybe separate low altitude burst events? If the burst were near the animal -- say a few hundred meters away, the velocity of the fragments could be more like the (relatively high) terminal velocity of a large object than the (lower) terminal velocity for the individual fragments.

Re:1,000,000,000 to 1

[Anonymous Coward]

People have been injured and even killed by bullets fired into the air

This is true. Actually I can't recall any historic battleground in a complete vacuum.

Re:1,000,000,000 to 1

[ackthpt]

I under stand some do make landfall. There is one on display, with the car it punctured, in the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago. There is also documentation of a woman in Russia IIRC, struck by one which passed first through the roof of her house or an outbuilding on a small farm.

My point is, these are extremely rare occurances. 99.999% of metorites break up to dust before landfall. Most of the "shooting stars" we witness are ice particles.

What struck these animals had to be a large body which made it through the atmosphere to ground, like the one metioned landing in South America earlier this year.

Re:1,000,000,000 to 1

[mbm49]

Yeah, but us other 999,999,999 slashdotters didn't. So yah, that's about right.

That was no comet

[Tyrsenus]

The simplest explanation tends to be the best. Tyrannosaurs in F-14's.

Re:That was no comet

[maiki]

+1 for Calvin and Hobbes reference. eh? I have no mod points left? well.... it was the thought that counts

Re:That was no comet

[Anonymous Coward]

Ouch - you win the thread. Totally.

Re:That was no comet

[B3ryllium]

Ah yes, the good old "Occam's Space Laser" theory.

Re:That was no comet

[Anonymous Coward]

But their arms are too short....how are they supposed to turn and fire at the same time?

Re:That was no comet

[Trogre]

Pedals. Massive, massive pedals.

Re:That was no comet

[Fear the Clam]

"Darn these claws! I hit the wrong switch again! Who designs these instrument panels, raccoons?!"

Re:That was no comet

[Anonymous Coward]

T-Rex's in F-14s? Seriously? Let's look take another look at the evidence here:

• traces of iron-nickel around the wounds
• punctures in skulls
• raised entry points indicating high velocity projectiles

The only real explanation that makes sense here is raptors with railguns.

BOOM! HEADSHOT!

Neat Story, Shitty Summary

[rednip]

Maybe they were exposed 13,000 years ago and got dusted by meteorites? Or actually, maybe it's just a really shitty summary, from tFA...

The discovery follows on from the group's previous research which claimed a more recent space collision - some 13,000 years ago. So the part about "13,000 years ago" had nothing to do with the bones pitted with meteorite, expect the group making the claim.

Re:Neat Story, Shitty Summary

[selfdiscipline]

I dunno, the summary seems cooler than the story to me. I was expecting an article about aliens mounting a war against mammoths, and was quite disappointed.

Re:Neat Story, Shitty Summary

[dintech]

As seriously cool as that would have been, I think the mammoths would have had the upper hand making it all rather boring. If Will Smith can upload a virus, mammoths can beat them too.

don't give creationists ammo

[circletimessquare]

"...35,000 years old, rather than from the known impact of 13,000 years ago"

the curent trend among creationists is poke holes in radiocarbon dating, and other half-life based dating methods

don't give the a-holes any ammo by saying things like this. obviously, it's from another impact, but they'll use it as evidence that radiodating rocks and fossils is faulty

Re:don't give creationists ammo

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, part of being a true scientist is not afraid to say you were wrong. By clinging to falsities to advance an agenda, you're no better than any creationist.

Re:don't give creationists ammo

[explosivejared]

Yeah, science should totally just abandon making hypotheses about anything controversial, because it might be grounds for anti-science groups to speak out against!

I don't mean to be obnoxious, but that is about as anti-scientific as it gets. Manipulating facts and theories to play politics is pretty much the antithesis of science. Please don't ever suggest something like that again.

Re:don't give creationists ammo

[PrimalChrome]

Don't you find your desire for censorship/alteration of findings to be a bit ironic?

Re:don't give creationists ammo

[Anonymous Coward]

"half-life based dating methods"

These don't work. The girls tend to run away when I tell them about my extensive half-life experiences.

Isn't it obvious?

[raddan]

The mammoth and bison remains all display small (about 2-3mm in size) perforations.

Raised, burnt surface rings trace the point of entry of high-velocity projectiles; and the punctures are on only one side, consistent with a blast coming from a single direction.

The ratios of different types of atoms in the fragments meant it was most unlikely they had originated on Earth, the team told the AGU meeting. A meteorite would not be my first thought. That would be alien hunters.

Re:Isn't it obvious?

[John Hasler]

> A meteorite would not be my first thought. That would be alien hunters.

Inept alien hunters, hunting mammoths with birdshot. Now if they just look around the site maybe they will find a trampled alien...

Re:Isn't it obvious?

[Somegeek]

It would be too easy to hunt primitive Earth creatures with your laser, the challenge lies in creating weapons from locally found resources. It's considered acceptable to use your laser for smelting and boring to create the weapons though.

Re:Isn't it obvious?

[lazy genes]

Hmm, every road sign in Minesota has the same type of damage.

Re:Isn't it obvious?

[bark76]

Actually the Mammoths were out hunting quail when one of them accidently shot the other. This all happened around the same time as the downfall of the elephant party.

Xenu is my homeboy

[scubamage]

These actually aren't earth animals, they're the skeletons from Xenu's spacecraft! Tom Cruise was right all along!

Re:Xenu is my homeboy

[samkass]

Sorry, wrong time scale. Xenu came to Earth 75 million years ago in DC-8s to strap Thetans to volcanos that geologists claim (sacrilege!) didn't exist at the time. Which is, of course, in the same geologic ballpark as the meteor that brought down the dinosaurs, so who knows.

Additional damage?

[a.d.venturer]

Have they checked for jagged double-edged tool marks and surface marking in a mesh pattern?

Ice Age Breasts?

[Shabbs]

Did anyone else read that is Ice Age Breasts?

Cuz I did.

Re:Ice Age Breasts?

[ColdWetDog]

Did anyone else read that is Ice Age Breasts?

Spending a bit too much time on 4chan are we?

Re:Ice Age Breasts?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep, I did too, did a double take and laughed at the imagery of "Ice Age Breasts Blasted from Space". I'm sure lots of people did, so I specifically searched for "breasts" at -1 threshold and found your post (not -1 yet). Yeah, this is offtopic, but I guess the mods don't have a sense of humor. It -is- funny adolescent humor and perfect for the geeks on /. who've never had a girlfriend. Oh well.

Re:Ice Age Breasts?

[Shabbs]

Heh. I had no idea what 4chan was until now. I'm surprised you didn't say Imagefap.

Does anybody have any idea about these

[sinan]

Are they meteor tracks??? http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=56.453385,-7.750854&spn=1.141412,3.702393&t=h&z=8&om=1/

Re:Does anybody have any idea about these

[witte]

My guess is, it's caused by a crack in the crust below the sea bottom, with sand filling the opened gap. Just guessing, though.

Second Obvious Conclusion...

[aasmodeus]

God sneezed. Intelligent Sneezing, no less!

Re:Second Obvious Conclusion...

[Fallingcow]

New shortest verse in the bible:

"Jesus sneezed".

nope, doesn't have the same ring to it.

Re:Second Obvious Conclusion...

[wolfman_jake]

If you had meteorite fragments up your nose, you would sneeze too.

Blast points?

[QuantumFlux]

Too accurate for Sandpeople. Only Imperial Stormtroopers are so precise.

Re:Blast points?

[Jesus_666]

Come to think about it... In the movies, the sand people always hit and the stormtroopers always missed (at least with hand-held blasters). Old Ben certainly had a peculiar way of seeing things.

Re:Blast points?

[Anonymous Coward]

Come to think about it... In the movies, the sand people always hit and the stormtroopers always missed (at least with hand-held blasters). Old Ben certainly had a peculiar way of seeing things.

One could say that it was true.... from a certain point of view.

Ahh!

[Cleon]

So that's how the Ice Age movies finally end!

Not understanding...

[__aagmrb7289]

Why were the scientists surprised? Do they think that no meteorites fell to the Earth at any other time? That seems weird.

Re:Not understanding...

[jamesh]

Why were the scientists surprised?

Scientists are easily surprised. It's not that strange.

Drive-by shooting

[EmbeddedJanitor]

This is old news... We've known for how-long now that mammoths had shotguns!

Re:Drive-by shooting

[Hal_Porter]

Yeah, it's in my Republican Edition bible. God gave them firearms just after he created them.

Was on TV

[jshriverWVU]

This is funny, I was just watching a documentary a couple hours ago on the History Channel that discussed this very thing. Though they were concentrating more on Mammoths. One guy used a shotgun for of small specs and shot if at an old arrow head to see if that much power could embed pieces of metal into it, which it didn't. So he concluded the arrowhead he had found with small metal specs had to be caused by a cosmic impact (turned out they were micro-meterites). Also another gentleman was using a highpower magnet over 2 tones of mammoth tusks looking for similiar metal pieces. Was a good show.

how does it advance the cause of reason

[circletimessquare]

to protect those who act against reason?

creationism is not science. it never was. and it never will be. giving them or denying them info does not give them more or less data to suddenly turn into reasonable people. it is merely denying ammunition for a propaganda machine that is not nor ever was interested in the truth

Re:how does it advance the cause of reason

[fferreres]

The fact that they can be right is what you are missing. if their theory is wrong, then nathing can make it work. If it is right, then why oppose it? I really don't give a shit about any theory and look at all facts with a suspicious attitude. For example, you seem to have an agenda too, and are willing to hide facts to "protect" ... who...from a bad theory?

Re:how does it advance the cause of reason

[QuoteMstr]

What are you are missing here is that creationists cannot be "right" in any scientific sense because it's not science. And what useful way of knowing about the world is there other than science?

And frankly, even if creationism were the "truth", that wouldn't matter. Science doesn't purport to deal in "truth." Science exists to come up with reasonable, useful explanations for real-world phenomena. Creationism is unreasonable because it makes too many assumptions, and it's useless because it makes no predictions.

What do you want us to do? Shall we throw up our hands, say "god did it", and shut down our universities?

Re:how does it advance the cause of reason

[jahudabudy]

And what useful way of knowing about the world is there other than science?

Hey, I like science as much as the next geek, but I would say any method that gets at a useful "truth" is, well, useful. Statistics ain't science, but I'd say its a pretty useful way of looking at the world (in certain situations). Ditto for mathematics, psychiatry, even intuition. As long as you arrive at a reasonable understanding of reality, the method by which you got there is not that important. Science has a BIG advantage given its proven track record, but it isn't always the appropriate method. Next time your wife is mad at you and you are desperately trying to appease her, word of advice: go with intuition to figure it out, not science.

Re:how does it advance the cause of reason

[Lord Ender]

What do you want us to do? Shall we throw up our hands, say "god did it", and shut down our universities?

Congratulations! You just won the Republican nomination for the next presidential election!

Re:how does it advance the cause of reason

[fferreres]

I expect science not to be disturbed by mad creationists, and the fight to stop. Just don't let it intimidate or make you mad, bad science is bad science, as always.

part of being a creationist

[circletimessquare]

is to never admit you are wrong, no matter how much logic data and reason is stacked up against you

creationism is not science. it never was. and it never will be. giving them or denying them info does not give them more or less data to suddenly turn into reasonable people. it is merely denying ammunition for a propaganda machine that is not nor ever was interested in the truth

it is in fact unscientific to manipulate data for competing scientific theories

it does not advance science in any way to give, or deny info to those who were never interested in the scientific process in the first place, and in fact act against science

Re:part of being a creationist

[jayp00001]

I always find it amusing when anti-creationists claim creationism wants to call itself science(it doesn't) and at the same time turns "science" into a religion.

creationism

[circletimessquare]

plays a game that censors out the weight of all logic reason and science in what they say. and people who do that, in your mind, are to be afforded the same consideration they don't offer anyone else

Re:creationism

[Markus Landgren]

Maybe these scientists are not interested in playing games with creationists, but are instead trying to do real science? As you have pointed out several times in this thread, creationists don't care about what scientific evidence exists. They draw their "conclusions" anyway, and will do so with or without the scientific result we are discussing here. The only thing that would be hurt by withholding this information is the scientific process itself, which relies on openness and honesty even when faced with new or unfamiliar results.

ah, the concept of fairness

[circletimessquare]

part of being a creationist is to never admit you are wrong, no matter how much logic data and reason is stacked up against you

creationism is not science. it never was. and it never will be. giving them or denying them info does not give them more or less data to suddenly turn into reasonable people. it is merely denying ammunition for a propaganda machine that is not nor ever was interested in the truth

it is in fact unscientific to manipulate data for competing scientific theories

it does not advance science in any way to give, or deny info to those who were never interested in the scientific process in the first place, and in fact act against science, always have, are now, and always will

manipulating info for actual scientists is wrong

manipulating info for those who will only use it in anti-scientific propaganda is just squelching the useless noise

Re:ah, the concept of fairness

[explosivejared]

As a person allowing yourself to be manipulated in the way you treat scientific data is in some way concession, to me at least. Like you say, whatever information science presents, that is outside their world view, will not phase them. Likewise, depriving them of any "ammunition" will not phase them. Why, when discussing science, should I have to tip-toe around with language to be careful I don't give ammunition to someone who is only interested in twisting facts to begin with. Allowing anti-science groups to influence scientific discourse is bad, okay.

That's impossible.

[TomatoMan]

The earth is only 6,000 years old.

Anybody who studied science in Kansas knows that.

Re:That's impossible.

[pnewhook]

The earth is only 6,000 years old. Anybody who studied science in Kansas knows that.

That's right. And God planted dead mamoths in the arctic with buckshot in their skulls just to fuck with us.

Re:That's impossible.

[vain gloria]

That's right. And God planted dead mamoths in the arctic with buckshot in their skulls just to fuck with us.

Not to mention the plesiosaur with the "END NUCLEAR TESTING NOW" sign.

Re:That's impossible.

[remmelt]

Don't you know? It's a test of faith! (Or he's really fucking with us.) (Or, the earth really is that old. Hi, mr Occam!)

Re:That's impossible.

[A Jew]

and a day is 24 hours, even when the earth and the sun don't exist.

13,000 year even not proven

[badinsults]

I remember a few months back, when the paper on the apparent Younger Dryas meteor event came out. Me and my buddy (I am a geophysicist who studies ice sheet history during the period, and he is a Quaternary geologist) picked it apart pretty well. The lines of evidence they used to correlate the event were not the same for each site. For instance, at some sites they used irridium, others charcoal, and still others Helium-3. The biggest problem with their correlation is that they were using the age of drumlins found in Ontario to date others over 2000 km away. There is no widespread evidence that all of North America burned due a meteorite impact 13,000 years ago. I mean have a look at the distribution of sites. If there truely was an impact that caused widespread destruction across North America, why has there been no published evidence in the central United States. Here in southwestern British Columbia, there is no evidence of any unusual sedimentation during the late Pleistocene. If there was an impact or explosion event that was so intense that it caused the extinction of early people in the Americas, would it not have had measurable material blown globally? I don't recall hearing about any such anomalies in the Greenland or Antarctic cores. It is a crackpot theory at best. One shouldn't discount that one of the main proponents of this hypothesis had only a couple of years ago suggested that a supernova caused the Younger Dryas (an idea that was quickly laughed at).

Re:13,000 year even not proven

[12357bd]

Plato, talking about Atlantis, refers a major blast on that time frame (9000 years before his epoch), but related to a major event in the Atlantic Ocean, maybe the remains found in America were not the main or sole impact.

There's also a lot of 'deluge' legends on tribes at both sides of Atlantic Ocean that locates the blast/explosion/destrucion on the middle on the actual Atlantic Ocean (sud-american tradition located at the east cost refers to a major destruction an corresponding or escape episode from the east, and african/europan traditions located at the west coastal rim talks about the same kind of episodes but from the west.

Of course oral traditions are ambigous, and unreliable, but in this case ('deluge' mith), many of them share a curios aspect: They explicitely state the need to pass to further generations the testimonial of the existance and experience of such a major disastrous event that will be not be considered possible to exist for future generations.

Re:13,000 year even not proven

[schmidt349]

Actually, Plato refers to an apocalyptic war between the Atlanteans and the Athenians of the day. Have you even played Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis?

Re:13,000 year even not proven

[12357bd]

Sorry but no, Plato does not refer to an 'apocaliptic war' at all. There's a war between Atlanteans and Atheneans, yes, but the destruction of Atlantis is not an effect of this war, in fact is indirectly pointed out as a posible cause.

So no, I've played Fate of Atlantis, yes, but not that much! :)

Re:13,000 year even not proven

[CAIMLAS]

The book "The Atlantis Blueprint" is one of, if not the, best books I've seen on this topic; it goes into the topics of shared myths and geological/geographical/archaeological evidence which pertains to the possibility of, not only an "Atlantis" but also looks at other possible explanations. I could not read the book without coming to the conclusion that there truly was a "prehistory" civilization here which we now vaguely refer to as "Atlantis" which new of a coming cataclysmic disaster, and learned a lot about the legends of the world and world-impacting elements which occurred in the past which may have been that cataclysmic disaster.

Of note as it pertains to your post, the Plato account of the destruction of Atlantis is covered specifically in this book. It is likely that Plato, while in Egypt, read an account of that very thing which had been written several thousand years prior and passed down through time.

In some versions of this "myth" the Pyramids and Great Sphynx have a very central role, as do the many pyramids and "holy sites" throughout the world. (Look up this in relation to ley lines/Roslyn line/golden ratio - there are literally thousands of pyramids and religious structures on predictable intersects too concise to be random or chance).

Re:13,000 year even not proven

[geekoid]

Interesting note:

I different interpretation of his work puts Atlantis in the Mediterranean sea.

I couldn't find the story I was thinking of, but this also talks about it:

http://www.atlantisdiscovered.org/thesis.htm

Re:13,000 year even not proven

[CAIMLAS]

The "Atlantis Blueprint" supposes that Atlantis was/is on Antarctica. The last pole shift resulted in the Antarctic ice cap to migrate where it was previously - the South Pacific/Australia area - to where it is now - Atlantis/Antarctica.

This book also addresses all/most other possible locations for it, IIRC including the (submerged) plateaus in the Gulf of Mexico, a Mediterranean and East Atlantic island or three, and a touch on the "Mu" legend (which is the Pacific version of the Atlantis legend: interestly, both the Atlantic and Pacific have direct access to Antarctica. If the magnetic poles were (say) 10 degrees further north (from what they are now), a large percentage of Antarctica's land mass would be not that much different than the US.

If you look at how Atlantis was described (center of the world, surrounded by oceans - plural - and with mountains, amongst other things), the location would have to be fairly large, or at least immensely wealthy, to garter the kind of fame they earned worldwide through the Atlantis/Mu/Lemuria myths.

Oh yeah, and the Atlantis story shares a great deal in common with ancient religious books; for instance, the angels who visited Noah before the flood (white, shimmering, etc.) are similar to divine beings as described by native Americans and other races throughout the globe - and a peoples capable of traveling the world-over fairly effortlessly is consistent with the remains they've likely left.

i'm glad

[circletimessquare]

that you don't care about those who manipulate science

i loathe them

it's important to be impartial in all things... EXCEPT towards those who are consciously and purposely partisan, who aren't concerned with the neutral truth, but are interested in actively skewing of it

when i see a creationist raping the truth, i will get involved to stop the rape

i'm glad your conscience is so wooden that you can see someone rape the truth, and remain uninterested in attempting to stop that

your impartiality, to a smaller degree than you portray, is admirable. but beyond a certain degree, and your deadened uncaring attitude towards creationists as a threat becomes self-defeating

you should care about those who attempt to destroy science, reason, and logic. they are impotent WITHIN the search for truth, yes. but they are not impotent in their desires and attempts to destroy all that underpins the search for truth. in the social structure that supports the search for truth: in the funding of universities and science departments, in the warping of young minds who are needed to refresh those departments, etc.

if you think religius fanatics would not kill or poison science if they could, and pose no threat to you as a scientist, you aren't paying attention to history. reference galileo for starters

creationism doesn't want to call itself a science?

[circletimessquare]

you know you should educate yourself the slightest bit about a subject matter before injecting yourself into a discussion about it, or you look pretty stupid

then you seem to imply that i'm part of a camp that considers science a religion

(rolls eyes)

shoot first, ask questions later, huh? such as: how baseless a smear should i attempt?

Creationists? I beg your pardon!

[Sammy Loo]

I'm a noodlist, a branch of pastafarianism. WWFSMD!? the world was created by the touch of his noodly. and those stupid animals were destroyed for their insolence!

Re:Thetans

[A New Normalcy]

TheTans...TheRested...TheReady...In hot rods of the gods! ...Lorenzo...(studying Dietetics at Seancetology)

Golgafrincham B Ark

[SteeldrivingJon]

Clearly it must be related to the crash landing of the Golgafrincham B Ark.

Re:Golgafrincham B Ark

[flyingfsck]

Hmm, the Golgafrincham A Ark has never been found, so it may have caused the later impact...

How long to make a fossil?

[Boogaroo]

Thank you. That's info that's helpful, and it leads me to ask a question.
I'm genuinely interested in finding out how long it takes to make your average bone-type fossil. I was unable to find any concrete answer about either time to form, or minimum age, of a fossil. Of course, there are several "make your own fossil" type projects that are essentially impressions in clay/rock, but that's not what I want to know.

I know "millions of years" will do the trick, but can it be done in less than 500,000? Less than 100,000? Does anyone have an answer(and hopefully a source?)

Re:How long to make a fossil?

[pushing-robot]

People have been able to artificially petrify/permineralize/fossilize things in far less time than that; under the right conditions, especially porous materials (wood, for example) can be "petrified" in a matter of months, weeks, or days. Hard materials take longer than softer ones, but you could definitely have your own working fossils in a relatively short time assuming you provide ideal conditions for permineralization.

Of course, the real world doesn't tend to provide "ideal conditions", but I do know that certain fossilized bones have been dated at between 10 and 50 Ka - like the Hofmeyr skull or the Cuddie Springs finds.

Did only the recent specimens heal?

[fotoguzzi]

The article is a bit of a mess. They scientists wonder if an event 13,000 years ago hit both the tusks of living animals and tusks that had been lying on the surface for 20,000 years. What the article does not address is whether only the 13,000-year-old samples had healed around the particle strikes.

Re:creationism doesn't want to call itself a scien

[Thanshin]

shoot first, ask questions later, huh? such as: how baseless a smear should i attempt? You travelled 13,000 years to the past, shot a bison with Kirk's rudimentary cannon and then sent it 22,000 more years to the past to disprove carbon dating and push your creationist science agenda!

0111 0011 0110 1111 0111 0011

[itstime13]

0110 1000 0110 0101 0110 1100 0111 0000 0010 0000 0111 0000 0110 1100 0111 1010

No, no, no.

[Fantastic Lad]

Fossil dating based on half-life measurement has some fascinating problems.

If you love knowledge and truth, then you must honor it. Not exploring or publishing certain ideas out of spite is no less anti-science and anti-reason than any creationist notion. --The only difference is that creationists champion ignorance out of foolishness. You are suggesting we do it out of fear and anger. I'm not sure which is worse.

-FL

Re:No, no, no.

[geekoid]

"Fossil dating based on half-life measurement has some fascinating problems."
Such as?
It's pretty damn good. Sure, when you look at something that's 180 millions years of, you might be off by 6 million years. Not really a big deal.

Re:No, no, no.

[Fantastic Lad]

Such as?

Well, for one, the system which uses Carbon-14 only works if one assumes that Carbon-14 levels do not fluctuate in the biosphere over time or location. There is some debate as to whether or not this is so.

Also, here's an interesting quote, (though, I just know you'll choke on the source. . .)

(A) Carbon dating. Is it incorrect by a factor of two prior to 10,000 years as L has suggested? We observe a factor of 2 variation in the scientific dating versus your dating. This is a repeating phenomenon on nearly all dates you have given.
A: "They" fail to take into effect the influence of magnetic aberrations caused by ancient cataclysms.
Q: (L) How can these magnetic aberrations affect radiocarbon dating?
A: By altering the isotopal imprints of matter.
Q: So, the cataclysm of about 1500 B.C....
A: All of them scramble the radiological data because of magnetic surges.

I've always wondered, based on this, if magnetic shifts or surges can have such an impact. Be a neat thing to test.

Okay. Now you can go ahead and type one of your childish and mean-spirited comments.

-FL

35,000 years old?

[salmacis2]

It's Dust, I tells you!

peppered from space?

[zxscooby]

I like my peppered wooly mammoth rare, with mashed potatos and gravy! ha! i kill me!

Right to Arm Bears

[Anonymous Coward]

With the bears armed, obviously the mammoths needed something too...

Rule 34.

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course.

There is porn of it. No exceptions.

Very odd

[DerekLyons]

Something seems a bit funny here - particles that small should slow down pretty quickly (a few hundred yards), even if they come from some kind of an explosion.

have you actually seen animals?

[BlackSnake112]

As far as your time line of events goes, you can be right or wrong it doesn't matter. But the most animals that are that hairy do not live in warm or hot environments. Also most animals would not wade through deep snow, they would walk on harder (rock/ice) surfaces. Have you ever tired to wade through 3-5 feet of snow? it is a really slow going. Also the mammoth studies have said that the thick fur was good at keeping the mammoths warm in the cold environment. Look at elephants. The ones in colder places have more hair then the ones in warmer places. So wouldn't it seem likely that mammoths did live in colder places? Mammoths are very similar to elephants?

Re:have you actually seen animals?

[pln2bz]

The most damning contradiction occurs as a result of calculations of consumable biomass that exists within a tundra environment. In fact, if I understand things properly, this is why the concept of the "mammoth steppe" evolved -- to synthesize these two ideas of cold environment and lots of biomass. But, the problem of the tundra is essentially that the ground is frozen. That limits the penetration of deep root systems and hence the plants' ability to recover from animals eating their vegetation. Therefore, they have to expend a significant percentage of their energies to filling their leaves with substances that are toxic to mammals. And in fact, we generally do not observe large mammals living in the tundra environment to this day due to these reasons. Some will visit for the warm months, but some of the areas where we've recovered mammoth remains (like in Alaska) possessed no easy way to migrate away for the winter. The Alaskan escape route was blocked by an immense ice cap. Also, it's important to realize that in order for a creature to propagate itself over many generations, it must exist in a sufficiently sized herd. This compounds the problem of environmental stress.

The only way to stick mammoths into a cold environment is to basically invent an ecology that does not exist today, as this ground freezing problem is generally ubiquitous in cold environments.

Greatest Title Ever

[kellyb9]

This is by far the greatest title I've ever read on Slashdot. I'm not even going to read the article because I'm sure it's not going to live up to the title.

It's classic crackpottery

[Chris Burke]

Ooookay, then. How do you explain the 10,000 year old frozen baby mammoth carcass found in Siberia a few years ago, then? Also, how did they cross the land bridge into the Americas without being able to tolerate cold during the Ice Ages?

Maybe the plasma arcs that supposedly explain meteor craters better than kinetic impact are somehow responsible...

This is classic crackpottery.

The Crackpot wants to claim that they are really a Revolutionary, that they have investigated the weak edges of science and found a fundamental problem, that the conventional wisdom is wrong, and that they hold the solution. A solution that up-ends the existing theories. They will claim that the reason they and they alone were able to discover this solution is because the Science Establishment is too set in their ways, too dogmatic, and simply refuses to question or investigate those areas where the science is weak and various mysteries inadequately explained. They will claim that the only reason that they are given the label "Crackpot" is because the Science Establishment is afraid of their ideas. The Science Establishment hates Revolutionaries, you see, and will not accept the scientific evidence the Revolutionary brings to bear no matter what.

Of course this is nonsense. Real Revolutions happen and up-end the "Establishment", they're just uncommon. Because in most cases, the existing science is by and large good and well established and supported by mountains of evidence. Einstein was a Revolutionary and General Relativity was a Revolution. His theory completely changed how we view the nature of the universe, and one of our most basic assumptions -- that Time itself is constant across all frames of reference. Quantum Mechanics was a huge Revolution in Science, again reversing some of our most basic assumptions about the universe. Yet these Revolutions are now the Scientific Establishment, by the simple virtue of the experimental evidence these Revolutions brought to bear, and now these theories are also supported by mountains of evidence, equally difficult to up-end.

So what then is the difference between the Crackpot and the Revolutionary? Well a major difference is that the true Revolutionary explains the new, explains the experimental data that the old theory cannot, but just as importantly also explains the experimental data that the old theory explained. Relativity didn't prove that Newtonian physics was wrong, it simply showed it to be an approximation for common conditions. It didn't suddenly come out and say "No, actually you can approximate gravitational attraction using the cube root of the distance between masses!" because anyone can drop an object and track its position and see that, in fact, Newton's Laws are correct within the precision of any available measuring device. Quantum Mechanics didn't prove that simpler models of atoms were completely flawed and false -- because all that chemistry you did in high school works just fine using those simpler models. QM only explains what the simpler model cannot.

The Crackpot's theory, on the other hand, cannot explain the existing evidence. The Crackpot, desperate to prove that they are Revolutionaries, then must try to deny the existing evidence, and deny the large successes of the existing theory at explaining the existing evidence.

This is the case with the Electric Universe shlock our "unwelcome celebrity" champions -- it actually tries to replace Newtonian (and relativistic) mechanics with electricity and plasma. Not just show that some of the difficult to explain parts of the universe (dark energy etc) are better explained with electricity, but that extremely easy and well explained parts of the universe (like meteor impacts, planetary motion) are also explained. It's this attempt to shoe-horn their theory into places it doesn't belong, to up-end science that needs no up-ending, that reveals the Crackpot.

Of course that's the point where most people stop reading. The Crackpot th

Re:It's classic crackpottery

[pln2bz]

I'm afraid that you are not paying attention to recent developments ...

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2007/11dec_themis.htm?list136664:

"THEMIS encountered its first magnetic rope on May 20, 2007," says Sibeck. "It was very large, about as wide as Earth, and located approximately 40,000 miles above Earth's surface in a region called the magnetopause." The magnetopause is where the solar wind and Earth's magnetic field meet and push against one another like sumo wrestlers locked in combat. There, the rope formed and unraveled in just a few minutes, providing a brief but significant conduit for solar wind energy. Other ropes quickly followed: "They seem to occur all the time," says Sibeck.

Now, either you know what the implications of this are -- or you do not. Please forgive me if you do, but I will explain it.

What happens in the laboratory with *electrical* plasmas is that the plasma will tend to form filaments of charged particles. It is a natural state of the plasma. Furthermore, multiple filaments will tend to possess long-range attraction and short-range repulsion. In other words, they will twist around one another without fully combining. This roped structure will essentially constitute a flow of charged particles as those charged particles move across the rope in response to charge differences, and this flow of charged particles will in turn create helical magnetic fields around each filament.

The observation of a roped magnetic structure connecting the Sun and Earth is extremely important because we know from our laboratory experiences with plasmas that ropelike structures occur when the plasma is electrical. If your argument now is that the similarity is coincidental, then the burden is upon yourself to explain how it is that gravity can create a roped structure within the solar wind.

I'm very curious what the response will be from the astrophysical community, but from what I've observed so far, it appears that the professional astrophysicists are going to attempt to ignore the unmistakable shape of this thing -- and the implications that it has for all of science.

So, do electrical currents exist in space? Let's look at what NASA has to say on the topic. You can check the link yourself if you don't believe it ...

From http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/themis/auroras/northern_lights.html:

THEMIS also has observed a number of small explosions in Earth's magnetic bow shock. "The bow shock is like the bow wave in front of a boat," explained Sibeck. "It is where the solar wind first feels the effects of Earth's magnetic field. Sometimes a burst of electrical current within the solar wind will hit the bow shock and--Bang! We get an explosion."

Emphasis is clearly mine.

I urge you to continue your ridicule of me with more caution, for you may come to regret saying these things in the future. You can certainly be excused for not believing that we are seeing paradigm change, but it may turn out that we in fact just live in interesting times, and that I'm actually one of the good guys just trying to raise awareness of the issue.

Re:It's classic crackpottery

[Plutonite]

I don't know enough about the original debate to say anything useful, but you said 2 things that are very interesting:

"Relativity didn't prove that Newtonian physics was wrong"

and

"Quantum Mechanics didn't prove that simpler models of atoms were completely flawed and false"

This is untrue. Newtonian mechanics were as false on some issues as the greek earth-wind-fire-air universe was false. Just because they were a better approximation does not mean that certain statements made by the proposed "laws" do not come out as false once you inspect them closely. Similarly, the classical atomic model is blatantly false in that it cannot even attempt to explain the phenomena that QM was created to address. When your model fails at some point, that's the end of it. You don't look back and say "oh it wasn't so bad". It's just wrong. A particular postulate it is making about the universe is not true, and that is all that matters.

Modern science is not interested in high school labs - we are interested in an absolute truth stemming from mathematical necessity, if such truth exists or can exist. Einstein proved the classical physics wrong by a thought experiment in a single piece of paper making a single assumption. That is the spirit of modern science. Maybe to human beings the magnitude of the error in some hypothesis is measured by how much that error affects human life, but if that were the case we would have abandoned much of physics and astrophysics a long time ago. Half-truths may work for the engineer, but not for the scientist.

Re:It's classic crackpottery

[Valdrax]

I urge you to continue your ridicule of me with more caution, for you may come to regret saying these things in the future. You can certainly be excused for not believing that we are seeing paradigm change, but it may turn out that we in fact just live in interesting times, and that I'm actually one of the good guys just trying to raise awareness of the issue.

Sooo... Mr. Not-Threatening Not-a-Crackpot...
How 'bout them land bridge migrations and permafrost preserved corpses?

Re:It's classic crackpottery

[Chris Burke]

Newtonian mechanics were as false on some issues as the greek earth-wind-fire-air universe was false. Just because they were a better approximation does not mean that certain statements made by the proposed "laws" do not come out as false once you inspect them closely

What?! What useful predictions could you ever get out of "earth-wind-fire-air"? That was never a scientific predictive model to begin with. You can make many fantastic and reliable predictions using Newtons laws. NASA still uses Newtonian mechanics to land probes on other planets.

When your model fails at some point, that's the end of it. You don't look back and say "oh it wasn't so bad". It's just wrong. A particular postulate it is making about the universe is not true, and that is all that matters.

No, that's not the "end of it", as the continued use of previous models to do good and useful scientific work clearly shows. Science does not simply abandon the old model, they keep it, knowing that there is a better model which is, itself, also just a predictive model.

Modern science is not interested in high school labs - we are interested in an absolute truth stemming from mathematical necessity, if such truth exists or can exist.

Where did you ever get that idea? There is no "absolute truth" in science, nor is science interested in discovering it. Science is interested in verifiable prediction. And as much as they can gain better predictive models of the universe, that's scientific progress, but it is not progress towards "absolute truth". The idea that there is a transient "truth" that gets forgotten when a slightly better "truth" comes along is laughable. Scientists know that they are all just models that are useful, and ready to be modified as new data comes in. For science, it's not "proving Newton wrong" so much as modifying the theory by appending "within this range of conditions, to this degree of precision".

Which is why science is interested in high school labs -- the verifiable predictions that are made by the science taught in high school are still valid, as you can test yourself. If those predictions stopped working, then that science would be absolutely proven wrong.

Einstein proved the classical physics wrong by a thought experiment in a single piece of paper making a single assumption.

And we're already certain that Einstein is "wrong" in that there are phenomenon that cannot be predicted by his model, and models which do cover such areas can't peacefully coexist with Einstein's theory. Quantum Mechanics is that model. So both QM and Relativity are "wrong"? They certainly are not the "absolute truth"!

So the fact that Newtonian physics cannot predict what will happen at extremely large masses and velocities means it was as much "proven wrong" as Relativity is "proven wrong" because it cannot predict what will happen at extremely small masses and distances.

Anyway that's all besides the point, because it was so much about Netwonian Physics being wrong as the observations that led to Newton's Laws are still predicted by Relativity -- Relativity subsumes Newtonian Physics. Whereas the Electric Universe tries to turn that on its head, and say things that are well predicted by Newton, Relativity, and other well studied models aren't happening at all.

Re:It's classic crackpottery

[Plutonite]

This is all an argument that is philosophical in nature, and it is good to be talking about this (although I am not a physicist myself, still a student) because it is important to know what we are trying to achieve. Science tries to make testable predictions that are either satisfied or refuted empirically. That is true, but why does science try to do this? What is interesting about testable predictions is that they provide a testable model of some subset of the universe, and we seek models of the universe (particularly complete, self consistent models)because our desire is to understand what exactly the universe is, and to make true statements about it's nature.

True statements are never approximations, unless the statements highlight the approximation. Why do you laugh at the idea of there being an absolute truth/complete model of the universe? If you were arguing on meta-mathematical grounds (Godel's work)I would understand, but I doubt this. You also do not sound like a religious nutjob who has to bring in a deity to explain the way things work. Why are you against the idea that a simple (or incredibly complex) set of basic truths that are inherent in the universe are grounds for a complete theory (or rather a complete model)? If we are building approximations that "work" then they must be approximations of something that is not an approximation. This something is what we strive to find.

You keep bringing up how we still "use" old models that fail in some situation.. I remind you again that this is the engineering business, not the scientific pursuit. Engineers are quite happy with something that works for what they are doing, because what they are doing is a human endeavor. They are not after "truths", they are just contributing to human civilization, and will try to do that with minimal information. Scientists (at least theoretical physicists) are not interested in "doing things" at all. Other people can use the knowledge to "do things". Scientists want to know.

So yes, QM and General Relativity are "wrong", or at least incomplete. Once we find out where exactly the incorrect assumptions are, we will move on, and hopefully after enough of these fundamental revelations, human beings can understand the universe as best as it can be understood. At that point physics will have done its "real" job and only the ramifications of the physical fundamentals will be approached. I hope it happens in my lifetime and that I contribute to it. It's the most meaningful (probably the only meaningful) thing a human being can aspire to do.

Time traveling explosion

[Culture20]

The meteorite obviously exploded with so much force that its fragments traveled faster than light.
Duh.

No meteorite before 13,000 years ago?!

[Nahor]

But the team was astonished to find the animal remains were about 35,000 years old, rather than from the known impact of 13,000 years ago.

So what? Haven't meteors existed for billions of years? Couldn't the animals be hit by meteors 35,000 years ago and then another one crashed 22,000 years later?

Cool! A Minnie Driver/Anne Hathaway love scene.

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

> Eight tusks and a bison skull all show signs of having being blasted with iron-nickel
> fragments, typical meteorite material. Raised, burnt surface rings trace the point of
> entry of high-velocity projectiles; and the punctures are on only one side, consistent
> with a blast coming from a single direction.

The scientists continue their discussion:

Scientist 1: Then the bison wrote, "I don't think I can survive much longer, bleeding badly, it's getting cold, so cold, agguh guh guh guh guhhhh"

Scientist 2: If he was dying, the bison wouldn't take the time to write out "ahh guh guh guh guh".

Scientist 1: Look, I'm only reading what it says.

Have *you* ever actually seen animals?

[DarrenR114]

"But the most animals that are that hairy do not live in warm or hot environments."

Do you have any specific examples to cite?

Right off hand, I can't think of any larger creatures with hairy coverings that live in arctic and sub-arctic conditions.

But I can think of at least one species with a very hairy mane that lives in very warm climates - the African Lion.

Uhhh

[Anonymous Coward]

What about Ice Age Breasts now?

It's classic crackpo- [MAYBE NOT]

[csmith101]

In college physics, they had a common name for ion-transporting twistey filaments in the lab- Birkeland Currents. [I think he was an early Nobel Prize winner.] Not sure why they didn't use the term in this article... Maybe they are still trying to get their minds around the sheer immensity of the ones they photographed between the sun and earth.

Re:It's classic crackpo- [MAYBE NOT]

[pln2bz]

Despite being nominated seven times, from what I'm reading right now, he never actually got it. But it was for political reasons associated with his business partner, Eyde. Eyde was a bit shady, and wanted to be included into the award even though he was just the financial backer.

It is still possible though that the Nobel Prize committee could eventually change their rules that preclude posthumous awards. It's one of those rare situations where a rule change may be appropriate because Birkeland basically drove himself mad in the process of trying to convince the world of his own convictions. If it turns out that he was actually correct -- and this does appear to now be possible -- then it would be the *right* thing to do. And if they refuse to do so, then perhaps whatever paradigm takes over could create its own award.

perceptions and Nobel Prizes

[Anonymous Coward]

"And if they refuse to do so, then perhaps whatever paradigm takes over could create its own award."

Don't confuse the elements here. The Nobel Committee is made up of humans and not any particular "paradigm", and it awards the Prize in fields other than physics. All the awards have endured paradigm changes in their respective fields. In particular, the Nobel Prize in physics predates the revolutionary paradigm changes from the classical physics of Newton and Maxwell to relativity and quantum mechanics. Einstein never won the Nobel Prize in physics for his work on Relativity, even though it was one of the top two novel and profound discoveries of the twentieth century. No exception has been made for him, and yet the Nobel Prize in physics has persevered as the most prestigious prize in the field nevertheless. The Nobel Prize is not an arbiter of "acceptable physics" any more than it writes the laws of nature or arbitrates the "acceptability" of any other field in which it awards prizes.

I think your comment provides insight into your psyche, and into what really thrills you about this Electric Universe theory. The story you tell others, and the story that maybe you honestly wish were true, is that your main thrill lies in obtaining a True Understanding of the universe. I don't doubt you possess that desire, as that seems present in just about every human. However, you fantasize about people getting prizes for discovering things. On one hand, you worship Alven and parrot Scott's/Thornhill's soundbyte about his Nobel Prize acceptance speech bringing conspicuous attention to the fact that the recipient of such a prestigious award held as his expert opinion ideas that can be tangentially misconstrued to support your own Electric Universe. On the other hand, you belittle mainstream astrophysics, and since that's built on mainstream physics you belittle that too, and since anyone who gives recognition awards to physicists and astrophysicists must in your book be equally mistaken you belittle them too.

Think about how many times you've said "Alfven warned" and "Alven pleaded" and "Nobel Prize acceptance speech, and think about how shallow and superficial an argument that is. It's an appeal to authority; in this case, at least a pertinent authority on space plasmas, but an appeal to authority nonetheless. You claim you place emphasis on evidence, experimentation and sound argument, yet puzzle over why nobody seems to take the Electric Universe seriously. You should consider the possibility that they consider your standards of evidence and bases of argumentation and logic to be quite hopeless, and you shoot yourself in the foot with comments like the one you made above. You come off as driven by a sense of justice and righteousness rather than by an unbiased and earnest yearning for truth and understanding, despite your efforts not to seem so and not actually to be so (both noble goals that I think everyone struggles with.

Though that reads as rather a personal assessment and will perhaps upset you, I don't mean it in bad faith, or even as an appraisal of you in particular. Even if that appraisal fits you a bit more strongly than many EU adherents I've encountered, it's applicable to all of them. I suspect that even the members of the Kronia group suffer from this as well. And I'm sure you need no convincing that you and they both have similarly partisan counterparts in the world of mainstream physics. Before taking anything I've said to heart, I hope you will re-read the previous paragraph with the mindset I've given in this last paragraph. So goes the advice: "Know thyself." If you want the ideas of the Electric Universe theory to be given serious attention, you will have *at least* to put your best foot forward, on top of asking valid and evocative questions. You'd also be wise to practice the humility you preach; to keep in the back of your mind that all this reading you've done, that these few physicists' work, could really be as wrong as your hoards of opponents say despite poetic justice going unserved when they said it so meanly and loudly.

Re:perceptions and Nobel Prizes

[pln2bz]

I respond to evidence. But only if you engage me on it.

Re:perceptions and Nobel Prizes

[pln2bz]

I think your comment provides insight into your psyche, and into what really thrills you about this Electric Universe theory. The story you tell others, and the story that maybe you honestly wish were true, is that your main thrill lies in obtaining a True Understanding of the universe.

Let's be completely clear with what my goal is here: I'm here to understand why people ridicule plasma-based cosmologies and EU Theory. I don't understand how most astrophysical textbooks can agree that plasma is the dominant state of visible matter within the universe, and yet the idea that we would study that dominant state within a laboratory to understand what's happening on a macroscopic level is somehow so ridiculous that I have to be publicly psychoanalyzed for it.

You act as if I'm on a different mission though. You act as if I'm here to *prove* that EU Theory is true in spite of the evidence. I possess no special attachments to the theory like that. As much as I enjoy the presence of those people I've met during this process, I will drop them like a hot potato if it turns out that there is something seriously wrong with their theories.

I don't doubt you possess that desire, as that seems present in just about every human. However, you fantasize about people getting prizes for discovering things. On one hand, you worship Alven and parrot Scott's/Thornhill's soundbyte about his Nobel Prize acceptance speech bringing conspicuous attention to the fact that the recipient of such a prestigious award held as his expert opinion ideas that can be tangentially misconstrued to support your own Electric Universe.

[...]

Think about how many times you've said "Alfven warned" and "Alven pleaded" and "Nobel Prize acceptance speech, and think about how shallow and superficial an argument that is. It's an appeal to authority; in this case, at least a pertinent authority on space plasmas, but an appeal to authority nonetheless. You claim you place emphasis on evidence, experimentation and sound argument, yet puzzle over why nobody seems to take the Electric Universe seriously. You should consider the possibility that they consider your standards of evidence and bases of argumentation and logic to be quite hopeless, and you shoot yourself in the foot with comments like the one you made above. You come off as driven by a sense of justice and righteousness rather than by an unbiased and earnest yearning for truth and understanding, despite your efforts not to seem so and not actually to be so (both noble goals that I think everyone struggles with.

Alfven worked with plasmas in the laboratory -- as opposed to just playing with the equations. Specifically, he cites a problem with the applicability of the frozen-in-place concept for low density plasmas.

Alfven specifically stated in his speech:

I thought that the frozen-in concept was very good from a pedagogical point of view, and indeed it became very popular. In reality, however, it was not a good pedagogical concept but a dangerous "pseudopedagogical concept." By "pseudopedagogical" I mean a concept which makes you believe that you understand a phenomenon whereas in reality you have drastically misunderstood it.

I never believed in it 100 percent myself. This is evident from the chapter on "magnetic storms and aurora" in the same monograph. I followed the Birkeland-Störmer general approach but in order to make that applicable to the motion of low-energy particles in what is now called the magnetosphere it was necessary to introduce an approximate treatment (the "guiding-center" method) of the motion of charged particles. (As I have pointed out in [5, sec. III.1], I still believe that this is a very good method for obtaining an approximate survey of many situations and that it is a pity that it is not more generally used.) The conductivity of a plasma in the magnetosphere was not relevant.

Some years later, criticism by Cowling made me realize that t

Re:perceptions and Nobel Prizes

[Anonymous Coward]

"You act as if I'm here to *prove* that EU Theory is true in spite of the evidence. I possess no special attachments to the theory like that. As much as I enjoy the presence of those people I've met during this process, I will drop them like a hot potato if it turns out that there is something seriously wrong with their theories."

If you are so independent a being from Thornhill and Scott and Talbott and Cardona et. al, with separate free will and powers of investigation, why do you find no flaws in their assertions while others do? If they seem so perfect to you, is that because they are in fact so perfect or instead because of something else, such as a willing or otherwise uncritical read on your part, or? Why do you have a deep, entrenched suspicion of common scientific thought but no such entrenched suspicion of their ideas? Why are you so willing to make the leap from "plasma's relevance is underappreciated" to "plasma is a panacea for all of astrophysics, cosmology, and even a unified field theory" without so much as a mathematical model or unambiguous evidence? That is the kind of introspection that should guide you (and I think everyone) as it guides scientists and philosophers. Are you familiar with William James' "The Will to Believe"? If not, you should investigate the philosophical formalisms it details because it seems you're living by it. It will bolster your strengths and (hopefully) wash away your weaknesses.

Here are some of the criticisms I have of your modus operandi, and reasons your actions might lead an observer to conclusions other than the statements you've listed above:

You label people as pseudo-skeptics, but you are yourself a pseudo-skeptic: You apply skepticism to mainstream science by attacking the inferential logic which justifies it, but you apply no skepticism to that same inferential logic when it supports your chosen theory. The inductive step is the weak point of all science! Your pseudo-skepticism is perfectly analogous to the following: I claim that humans do not live forever (even if there is some possible but unrealized way) as evidenced by the fact that so far, none ever have. You deny that I can be so sure about it by saying that not all the evidence is in, and further conclude using no additional analysis that it's possible for humans to live forever because we can't rule it out. True enough, some human either now living or yet to begin living may in fact never die, and I'd look quite the fool then, you say. But that does not weaken the inductive argument one bit. David Hume was a pseudo-skeptic in this sense. I don't think your self-described expertise on the philosophy and history of science and epistemology is as deep as you think it is, not only because you've argued so poorly even within your own philosophical framework, but also because you've failed to cite the best arguments and techniques and authors and works even for your own approach to knowledge.

You apply your pseudo-skepticism to rid yourself of the inconvenient facts revealed by the scientific method, even so far as to deny the evidence of the cornerstone of science from the time of the European Renaissance to the time of Maxwell to Einstein and Heisenberg and Watson and Crick to Alfven to Witten. Inconvenient things such as that, the Copernican principle, for which there is towering evidence from laboratories and telescopes and veracity from the halls of logic and scientific philosophy alike, get tossed. You probably don't even know what that evidence is, but no matter because you can simply dispense with the logic that gives it meaning.

You use the argument from personal incredulity as reason that people should believe that the Electric Universe approach probably explains the universe and Standard Model cosmology does not. You reject the role of "invisible particles" as you (and Don Scott) pejoratively describe them because you find them counterintuitive, evidence of their existence be damned. Same with neutron stars, pulsars, black holes, and of course quantum mechanics in it

Re:perceptions and Nobel Prizes

[pln2bz]

If you are so independent a being from Thornhill and Scott and Talbott and Cardona et. al, with separate free will and powers of investigation, why do you find no flaws in their assertions while others do?

The reason is that I've reviewed the criticism, and my conclusion is that the debate is legitimate. There are truly two world views here. Although the numbers of supporters are not equally distributed, it's a legitimate debate between some laboratory plasma physicists and a large number of astrophysicists. I've reviewed the arguments presented by Tim Thompson; I've reviewed some of the older catastrophist materials between Carl Sagan and Velikovsky, and I've read some of Ginenthal; I've reviewed the Electric Universe materials by Don Scott and Wallace Thornhill; I've gone through the "mythological" evidence by Dwardu Cardona and Rens van der Sluis with an open mind; and I've paid very close attention to the accurate predictions that Wallace Thornhill has made, and almost more importantly, the responses to those predictions. Taken as a whole, EU Theory survives the criticism fully intact. In fact, it even presents many unresolved issues for the mainstream.

The problem is that the arguments are just far too complicated for most people to understand, and so it remains under the radar as far as the public is concerned. Many people have made the unfortunate mistake of assuming that this low visibility is a reflection upon the legitimacy of the arguments themselves. Of the few who are trained to understand astrophysical issues, the education they received clearly favored one particular cosmology. And that explains why the issue is so contentious. This is in fact a debate over whether or not their mathematics is matching the decades of laboratory research that has gone into plasma physics.

If a group of plasma physicists is arguing, for instance, that magnetic reconnection is in fact just a re-statement of exploding double layers or that there are major issues with how magnetism is treated within astrophysics, then those are *very* serious allegations that deserve a dignified response, and if possible, experimental validation one way or another. The fact that the plasma physics portion of EU Theory claims are just being ignored though for the sole reason that it is the EU Theorists who are saying them says much about the way in which astrophysicists deal with these sorts of issues.

One thing is clear to me from my readings: conventional astrophysicists completely and consistently underestimate the legitimacy of the EU Theory arguments and evidence. Many don't even know enough about it to realize that they're siding with mathematical models against lab results.

If they seem so perfect to you, is that because they are in fact so perfect or instead because of something else, such as a willing or otherwise uncritical read on your part, or?

Actually, the issue with conventional astrophysics today is that certain interpretations for observations are being completely ignored. If you look, for instance, at the Baltis Vallis on Venus, you observe a sinuous rille that spans 4,200 miles and that moves both up and down with the terrain, in apparant defiance of gravity. From http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/050203venusriver.htm:

"... Topographical analysis of the flow paths produced a puzzling result: some of them seem to flow uphill! Since gravity is gravity on any planet, the ground in these places must have shifted since the time the rivers ran."

Well, if we're to avoid allowing assumptions into our conclusions, then another completely legitimate explanation is that the sinuous rille was created by an electrical plasma, as we appear to also see occurring on Io and Enceladus. And we see the same exact thing with the Colorado River and the Kaibab Upwarp: rivers do not tend to punch straigh

Re:perceptions and Nobel Prizes

[APODNereid]

If you wish to be taken seriously, pln2bz, may I suggest that you decide whether you're barracking for something with a basis in science, or some other arena.

If it's science, then either you sign on to the relevant methods, tools, techniques etc of the field you are interested in, or you start by admitting that you want to use a somewhat (or very) different set.

From the post of yours that I'm replying to, I can't tell; however, you do seem to be asking for acceptance of the ideas you are so obviously promoting on the basis of their (traditional) scientific legitimacy. As I have to start somewhere, the rest of my comment will assume this is the case.

I've paid very close attention to the accurate predictions that Wallace Thornhill has made, and almost more importantly, the responses to those predictions. Taken as a whole, EU Theory survives the criticism fully intact. Right here, in the first paragraph, your programme runs into trouble.

First, there's no such thing as 'EU Theory', in the standard, scientific meaning of 'Theory' (think of 'Theory of General Relativity', for example).

Second, within the scientific paradigm of physics (plasma physics, astrophysics, etc), Wallace Thornhill did not make any predictions, much less any accurate predictions!

Let's move on.

Of the few who are trained to understand astrophysical issues [...] May one infer from this that you, yourself, feel that you are one of the few?

May one ask what training you have received, pertinent to understanding 'astrophysical issues'?

The fact that the plasma physics portion of EU Theory claims are just being ignored though for the sole reason that it is the EU Theorists who are saying them I've not read enough of your other Slashdot comments to be able to conclude if you're joking, are quite serious, or something else entirely.

Staying within the scientific paradigm of physics (plasma physics, astrophysics, etc), I'm aware of almost no such 'plasma physics portion of EU Theory claims' published in relevant, peer-reviewed scientific journals in the last decade or so (other than one or two papers by A. Peratt). If these so-called claims have (plasma physics, space science, astrophysics) scientific merit, why don't the authors write up papers and get them published in peer-reviewed journals? Goodness, there are even ways to get ideas 'published', with 'review', with a much lower standard than the relevant journals in the field - why haven't there been any?

One thing is clear to me from my readings: conventional astrophysicists completely and consistently underestimate the legitimacy of the EU Theory arguments and evidence. Many don't even know enough about it to realize that they're siding with mathematical models against lab results. This will be the last quote, even though I'm barely a tenth of the way through your reply, it's already abundantly clear I made an incorrect assumption earlier.

Which textbooks, review papers, etc - by 'conventional astrophysicists' - did you read (that lead you to such a conclusion)?

Which 'lab results' (published where) did you read? To what extent did you check for the use of 'mathematical models' in the presentation of those 'lab results'?

In which lab was a test done, on a 2 x 10^30 kg mass of ~75% H, ~24% He, ~2% all other elements, of the legitimacy of 'EU Theory arguments and evidence' vs mainstream astrophysics?

But perhaps I have seriously misunderstood what you wrote. Would you be kind enough to state, as clearly as you can, the extent to which the cause/ideas/whatever you are promoting should (could?) be judged using the standard methods of science (of the fields of plasma physics, space science, or astrophysics)?

Re:perceptions and Nobel Prizes

[pln2bz]

First, there's no such thing as 'EU Theory', in the standard, scientific meaning of 'Theory' (think of 'Theory of General Relativity', for example).

Well, surely, if you cover your eyes with your hands, you will not see it. The ironic thing perhaps is that you actually read what an infinite improbability drive was when you were younger and you're now apparently trying to use it.

Second, within the scientific paradigm of physics (plasma physics, astrophysics, etc), Wallace Thornhill did not make any predictions, much less any accurate predictions!

I would be wary of relying upon arguments that depend upon a lack of awareness within the public, for if large numbers of people finally learn about the prediction, and you are still arguing that he made no prediction, people will consider your approach to be a bit "unique". I fail to believe that the public will adopt your more nuanced definition of what a prediction is (whatever that is).

But more than that, I also wonder what your purpose is in denying these things rather than arguing against them? It appears to be less of an attempt to understand your surroundings than an attempt to *define* your surroundings.

Re:perceptions and Nobel Prizes

[APODNereid]

Sigh.

I was hoping, but not expecting, better than this from you, pln2bz.

First, there's no such thing as 'EU Theory', in the standard, scientific meaning of 'Theory' (think of 'Theory of General Relativity', for example).

Well, surely, if you cover your eyes with your hands, you will not see it. So, uncover my eyes (and those of anyone else reading this) ... go ahead, make your day! Give us all the reference(s), to the paper(s) published in the relevant peer-reviewed journal(s), where we can all go read all about this so-called theory for ourselves!

Just one request: please make sure that these papers have been cited (referenced) by the other papers you will be quoting, whenever you invoke 'EU Theory'.

Alternatively, be honest enough to admit that there is no such scientific theory.

Second, within the scientific paradigm of physics (plasma physics, astrophysics, etc), Wallace Thornhill did not make any predictions, much less any accurate predictions!

I would be wary of relying upon arguments that depend upon a lack of awareness within the public, for if large numbers of people finally learn about the prediction, and you are still arguing that he made no prediction, people will consider your approach to be a bit "unique". I fail to believe that the public will adopt your more nuanced definition of what a prediction is (whatever that is). Here's where I expected more of you.

As my comment - that you are quoting - clearly states ("From the post of yours that I'm replying to, I can't tell; however, you do seem to be asking for acceptance of the ideas you are so obviously promoting on the basis of their (traditional) scientific legitimacy. As I have to start somewhere, the rest of my comment will assume this is the case."), I was working within the assumption that you were presenting a case within the paradigm of the relevant parts of modern science !

Now that I know - thanks for the clarification - that that is not the paradigm you are working within, I am looking forward to you explaining - to me and any other readers of this comment - just what paradigm you are working within.

But more than that, I also wonder what your purpose is in denying these things rather than arguing against them? It appears to be less of an attempt to understand your surroundings than an attempt to *define* your surroundings. Glad you asked; I do hope you will be willing to listen to the answer.

Communication requires a certain minimum in terms of common understanding.

If I wish to communicate with you - and any others who happen along with comments - I need to make sure that the relevant parts of such a common understanding are in place. Otherwise, we will just be talking past each other for quite a while before realising it.

So, in this regard, I have achieved something very important: whatever case it is that you are so keen on presenting, I must not assume that you intend it to be taken seriously as one that has scientific merit.

If, at any time, you do intend something you assert to be taken seriously (scientifically), then please say so, and I (and others) may engage in science-based discourse with you.

Back to the topic ... on what basis - other than popular opinion - do you wish your assertions to be judged? tested?

Re:perceptions and Nobel Prizes

[pln2bz]

There is no longer a useful conversation here. You've allowed the conversation to become so vague that it no longer possesses any meaning. I've attempted to bring up specific facts along the way, but you've repeatedly refused to deal with a single one of them.

Re:perceptions and Nobel Prizes

[APODNereid]

Sorry you feel that way ... I was looking forward to your answers (as I said, I've been reading your other comment in SD, and it seems you have been much more, shall we say, expressive, and willing to engage in dialogue with others ... even when the topics have been highly abstract ...).

BTW, would you mind re-stating the 'specific facts' that you think you have brought up? Just the top five will do. I'm interested to understand how you could possibly have concluded that I 'refused to deal with a single one of them'.

Re:perceptions and Nobel Prizes

[Anonymous Coward]

In light of my wrong assumptions about the solitude of our discussion, I will first address the following few issues you raise in your reply. APODNereid, apparently from BAUT, is no affiliation of mine and neither is anyone else from BAUT or any other web forum. I guess I shouldn't be surprised they've taken notice of you as I have. Though Nereid's response pertains to your specific post, I think it is clear the response is not one written with any knowledge of your modus operandi or the futility of taking that particular approach to arguing with you. That is, after all, why I listed the particular objections that I did and took care to clarify and qualify them. Nereid would be wise to understand them and research you independently before trying to deal with you as the kind of mere EU pretender seen in most internet forums.

"In forwarding your comments to others that have investigated EU Theory...Many of these people believe your arguments lack so much merit that they tried to talk me out of actually responding to you and people like yourself."
[Talbott:]
"pure sophistry...The writer has filled his post with arguments from a rhetorical template written by an academician too lazy to investigate the subject."

Mr. Talbott seems eager to dismiss my objections as blanket statements, and particularly eager to deny their substance, as if they had none. The former is somewhat understandable because he doesn't likely read your prodigious correspondence with people all over the internet, but the latter is a glaring omission that indicates a) that he doesn't understand them, or b) he finds them damning and wishes to softpedal them, or (worst) c) he truly does not find them troubling at all. He also makes the rather bold inference/assertion that I'm merely some trumped up rhetorician with no knowledge of the matter at hand. For every single objection that I presented, I stated the objection and then explained in particular how and why it applied, all in context. It was all targeted very specifically for your consumption, and not for bystanders since we're a bit off-topic for this discussion, which moreover is ancient by Slashdot's standards and I would not expect to be revisited by the readership beyond the two of us. As I think you at least find obvious, my observations are tailored so specifically that only someone familiar with the assertions of EU theory and your particular actions could make them. If others don't think so, that's because they have not witnessed your activities and tactics first-hand. Certainly your cronies have not been on the receiving end in any case! I think it is Mr. Talbott who has made use of sophistry; not I. Furthermore, I am beginning to suspect that he uses the tactic willfully and not innocently.

[Talbott:]
"Your critic would not be happy to know what is occurring at this moment. But the fellow will no doubt continue preaching to a lazy choir until they've all grown bored and left or decided to look into the subject..."

Mr. Talbott would be surprised to know that I *do* know what is happening at this moment, which would be nicely consistent with a person who had followed your story in enough depth and duration to make the observations and the critique that I did. He does not seem to realize that this exchange is taking place in an article long abandoned by a readership that seldom discusses any article longer than its stay on the front page, let alone revisits the obscure, off-topic threads concealed by Slashcode's treatment of unmoderated posts. We may be speaking in a large arena, but it is quite empty (except, apparently, for your confidants and other interested third parties whose level of knowledge makes them immune to mere persuasion). As I said before: this exchange is meant for you and not the masses. I argue utterly indifferent to any "choir" as I anticipate none at all, and you, the only (anticipated...) recipient, are well aware of the specific ideas and facts we discuss. Anybody else who looks on it has almost certainly sought it out with a mind alread

Re:perceptions and Nobel Prizes

[APODNereid]

APODNereid, apparently from BAUT, is no affiliation of mine and neither is anyone else from BAUT or any other web forum. I guess I shouldn't be surprised they've taken notice of you as I have. Though Nereid's response pertains to your specific post, I think it is clear the response is not one written with any knowledge of your modus operandi or the futility of taking that particular approach to arguing with you. That is, after all, why I listed the particular objections that I did and took care to clarify and qualify them. Nereid would be wise to understand them and research you independently before trying to deal with you as the kind of mere EU pretender seen in most internet forums. Thanks for these comments.

In fact, if you read my other SD comments, you'll see that I have been independently investigating pln2bz's 429 (as of today) SD comments, from Day 2 of my SD existence.

FWIW (for what it's worth), I have found a number of replies to pln2bz's SD comments helpful and informative, not least because some were followed by further pln2bz's SD comments (and so on). In particular, I have formed the (provisional, tentative) opinion that pln2bz:

a) does not often respond to questions about material in his (her?) SD comments;

b) writes (deliberately?) using words which have sometimes quite idiosyncratic meanings, but doesn't spell these personal meanings out, thus making communication unnecessarily difficult;

c) (deliberately?) mis-states, mis-interprets, or misunderstands many so-called facts, observational or experimental results;

d) is confused about, or (worse) deliberately mis-construes, the nature of physics (plasma physics, astrophysics, space science, ...), as fields of science (and is reluctant - or worse, regards it as abhorrent - to engage in discussion on this).

FWIW(2): anyone reading this comment is free to assume anything they wish about any connection between APODNereid and any user/member/participant in any other internet discussion forum, whether with the handle/name/avatar of Nereid or not. Myself, I wish what I write here to be read solely within the context of the SD comment strings in which they appear or reference.

FWIW(3): my current goal, wrt (with regard to) pln2bz is to establish clear guidelines on what she (he?) considers legitimate frameworks within which the EU ideas he (she?) promotes may be judged, assessed, tested, evaluated, etc. To the extent that I have formed any opinion, it seems that, as a hypothesis, 'there is only one true word, and that is the word of {Thornhill, Scott, insert other names here}' is not falsified by anything pln2bz has written in SD (that I've read so far). pln2bz, if you're reading this, I'd appreciate it if you could point me to comments you've written in SD which do, in fact, falsify this hypothesis.

d2

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm for the theory of the Diablo2 sorceress using meteor. it explains this in the d2 game manual. a long time ago a sorceress used meteor in a battle. maybe the mamoths and bison were in the vicinity and just got hit..

characterization and understanding

[Anonymous Coward]

"I wish what I write here to be read solely within the context of the SD comment strings in which they appear or reference."
Duly noted.

"if you read my other SD comments, you'll see that I have been independently investigating pln2bz's 429 (as of today) SD comments, from Day 2 of my SD existence."
I did and I have, and I made my statement because your interaction with him struck me not only as ineffective but detrimental to *anyone* continuing useful interaction with him. You could not reasonably have known this so early in your investigation, and I thought your interactions were rather clumsy for it. I still think you are using too much "shotgun-style" questioning, but your questions have become much better targeted.

Your analysis and your opinion are your own of course, but I will respond to your points, since you implicitly request feedback by posting them:

"a) does not often respond to questions about material in his (her?) SD comments;"
I disagree. Until this very recent deluge of SD chatter, I have observed that it was extremely rare for pln2bz to drop any argument, or even allow a single disparaging or otherwise disagreeable comment to go uncontested. There are many examples of his writing a page or more, often much more, in response to even the smallest dissent. At least one user even commented on this directly, saying words to the effect of "you don't have anything to say but you hide that by writing 1000 words anyway".

"b) writes (deliberately?) using words which have sometimes quite idiosyncratic meanings, but doesn't spell these personal meanings out, thus making communication unnecessarily difficult;"
I suppose you could say that they're idiosyncratic meanings. EU has (as far as I can tell) an internally consistent jargon and grammar, but I think the primary problem is that EU theory is predicated on 1) ignorance of the observations that support mainstream physics, and 2) denial of the inductive step in considering the few, cherry-picked observations that support mainstream physics (they simply allege "misinterpretation"). For an example of (2), see Don Scott's rejoinder to Tim Thomson's response to the solar neutrino problem where essentially invokes occasionalism. Examples of (1) are obvious to any undergraduate in any physical science their story touches.

"c) (deliberately?) mis-states, mis-interprets, or misunderstands many so-called facts, observational or experimental results;"
I believe his mis-statements and mis-interpretations of these things are naive misunderstanding, and not malicious. I'll expound below.

"d) is confused about, or (worse) deliberately mis-construes, the nature of physics (plasma physics, astrophysics, space science, ...), as fields of science"
Although it is clear that he uses a system for gaining knowledge about Nature that is different from what most people use, it is critical to understand that everyone, including him, must share this system in order to reach his conclusions. He knows this as well as you know that he must share your system of knowledge (which you call science; an act he regards as pretentious and wrong) to reach your conclusions about Nature. This is the true fight.

"(and is reluctant - or worse, regards it as abhorrent - to engage in discussion on this)."
In light of my discussion above, he should fight very critically on this front when pressed. This is borne out by his actions when pressed, although he is seldom pressed in this way. This is clearly the lynchpin disagreement with a *truly* convinced EU adherent, and is therefore the framework by which I seek to demonstrate flaws in his adherence.

Most of his posts on Slashdot treat his readership as if they already had his system (thus his "confidence in his readers' ability") by appealing to common sense about images (especially of mythology and plasma structures) and an intrinsic incredulity about "invisible particles" and relativity, which boils down to an appeal to lack of imagination. A cornerstone of his mod

Re:characterization and understanding

[APODNereid]

Many thanks for the long and thoughtful reply.

To address the last: pln2bz (and anyone else reading this), the Anonymous Coward (AC) whose post I am replying to is not APODNereid. Of course, you should not take me (or AC) at my word, but undertake your own investigation.

Somewhat out of order:

"I wish what I write here to be read solely within the context of the SD comment strings in which they appear or reference."

Thanks for your noting this. You'll see from at least one of pln2bz's comments today (or yesterday, depends on where you are) that he (I shall follow your convention and call pln2bz 'he') did not choose to respect my clearly expressed wishes in this matter. Worse, and apparently quite uncharacteristically, he leveled some unsubstantiated, pejorative charges at me, and chose not to reply (despite being directly called on them).

"a) does not often respond to questions about material in his (her?) SD comments;"
I disagree. Until this very recent deluge of SD chatter, I have observed that it was extremely rare for pln2bz to drop any argument, or even allow a single disparaging or otherwise disagreeable comment to go uncontested.

From my reading of earlier SD comments, by pln2bz, I now see that this is so.

All the more unusual then that he has apparently changed his approach - off the top of my head, I'd guess there are at least a dozen, quite serious, questions, comments or challenges from me that he has not replied to.

Perhaps the most remarkable - though not particularly surprising - is his apparent reluctance to state the logically consistent paradigm within which he himself judges/assesses/etc ideas, facts, etc in the fields of astronomy and space. Naively, I'd've expected - based on my reading (to date) of his SD comments - that he'd be only too pleased to reply, in well over 1000 words. After all, a common theme in his comments is that those who question 'EU Theory' have not taken the trouble to read the evidence presented, and, even if they have, they are not willing to assess it in any way other than one from the universe of what might be called 'approaches consistent with modern science'.

"c) (deliberately?) mis-states, mis-interprets, or misunderstands many so-called facts, observational or experimental results;"
I believe his mis-statements and mis-interpretations of these things are naive misunderstanding, and not malicious.

I continue to find it amazing that the mis-understanding and mis-interpretation (deliberate or not) is so widespread!

But perhaps I shouldn't be; it seems that pln2bz relies on what we might call tertiary sources - summaries on TB webpages, which are themselves based on (HST, ESO, ESA, NASA, etc) PRs, which are in turn based (to varying degrees) on papers published in relevant peer-reviewed journals. Can you recall him ever having referenced a primary source?

"d) is confused about, or (worse) deliberately mis-construes, the nature of physics (plasma physics, astrophysics, space science, ...), as fields of science"
Although it is clear that he uses a system for gaining knowledge about Nature that is different from what most people use, it is critical to understand that everyone, including him, must share this system in order to reach his conclusions. He knows this as well as you know that he must share your system of knowledge (which you call science; an act he regards as pretentious and wrong) to reach your conclusions about Nature. This is the true fight.

This rings true, based on what I've read so far of his SD comments.

In some ways it's good news - there is the possibility that an agreement on 'the rules of engagement' can be reached, and thus that there is a framework within which fruitful dialogue can take place.

Most of his posts on Slashdot treat his readership as if they already had his system (thus his "confidence in his readers' ability") by appealing to common sense ab

Re:characterization and understanding

[Anonymous Coward]

All the more unusual then that he has apparently changed his approach

Per his own writings, he believes quite sincerely that EU is basically right, from which it naturally follows that the only reason anyone would reject it is failure to examine the relevant evidence/arguments through, in turn caused by either tunnel vision or malicious suppression, and thus that widespread acceptance of EU theory hinges solely on breaking the (in widespread opinion imagined) stigma against plasmas' role in everything from soup to nuts, and by necessary extension cosmology itself. He has in fact changed strategy before; he views his self-appointed mission as a tactical puzzle with an answer that he can and eventually will discover. He has said so himself on Thunderbolts, encouraged others like him with frank advice, and taken my own (also frank) advice (as well as that of others it seems). My own advice encouraged him to focus on raising questions as I observed that these non-confrontational posts were the highest moderated posts on Slashdot; he began asking more questions and causing people to think about how to answer them and consequently making his posts higher-moderated (and thus more visible) on the whole. He and I are both of the opinion that EU theory's merit can be judged quite objectively, so it serves our purposes equally well.

I'd guess there are at least a dozen, quite serious, questions, comments or challenges from me that he has not replied to.

It seems he finds them "Inquisitorial" in nature. Even if they are sincere and deserving from your perspective, I think your questions may veer uncomfortably close to the universally shady tactic of "shotgun" spamming in appearance and effect, certainly from one who views you as such a hostile entity. He might be passionate and confident enough to overcome this eventually and address these questions, but I think it is wise to avoid kicking sand and reap the benefits of deep and careful examination of a few key issues at a time (which can be difficult given the interconnectedness of the issues involved). I think he uses this tactic himself in his discourses on Slashdot, visible as the majority of his threads addressing few but key issues.

it seems that pln2bz relies on what we might call tertiary sources...Can you recall him ever having referenced a primary source?

For the first, his response is that the "theorists" in question receive no funding and are constrained only to use data released by the various well-funded space agencies (you may verify this in his comments made on Slashdot, and probably elsewhere). For the second, yes. He has cited at least ostensibly scientific papers published by Peratt and Verschuur, among others, and often (when pressed anyway) cites miscellaneous articles from arXiv.org and Smithsonian/NASA ADS, with varying levels of pertinence. The closest to primary works he cites for the benefit of Slashdot's readership are the popular books by Scott, Talbott & Thornhill, Cardona, and Ginenthal, as these are the only "authoritative" or even "comprehensive" works on the subject that exist. I have never seen him cite any raw data. I think, in other words, that he tries the easy sell first but also has a toolkit to work on the harder sell he might encounter on Slashdot. To re-emphasize, he does not seem to consider this to be a dupe or con, but rather the necessary step for convincing each case.

there is the possibility that an agreement on 'the rules of engagement' can be reached, and thus that there is a framework within which fruitful dialogue can take place.

I agree, but finding it has been elusive to both side. I am only mostly confident that there exists a mutually agreeable framework and have a small but nagging suspicion that there is something fundamental and entrenched in the minds of some people; that it is not merely a powerful persuasion in a quantitative sense, but a fundamentally different kind of persuasion in a qualitative sense that tak

issues in particular

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason is that I've reviewed the criticism, and my conclusion is that the debate is legitimate.

You certainly have not reviewed the entire corpus of criticism, because it contains both observations and experiments which falsify the cosmology of the Electric Universe theory. None of the "mathematical modeling run amok" you so scorn is required to see that its hypotheses about the universe are false.

There are truly two world views here.

In the real of "mainstream" science, the way to knowledge is to guess how Nature works in a way such that you'll know whether you were right or wrong if you interrogate Nature by observing it in action. This is the first departure that EU theory makes: it guesses about how Nature works in a way that the interrogators cannot tell whether the interrogation supports or contradicts the guess, such as Thornhill's prediction that comets might show massive charge neutralization "or none at all" if their potential difference has decreased enough, slowly enough. Of course they will demonstrate one of *those* two things, regardless of any other merit! Therefore, his guess will still seem plausible after interrogation because it was not falsified, and remain unproven because we can't say that no future interrogation will contradict the earlier rules that developed through other interrogations that simply failed to be disproved. (You're fond of pointing out this last part here on Slashdot and probably elsewhere in saying that the Big Bang theory is not proven; of course it isn't! It simply isn't proved wrong. Even if it's possible that the CMBR is a local "haze", that much simply isn't proved wrong; the *possibility* of falsifying a theory does not constitute an *actual* disproof of a theory. There are many other examples like this in the body of EU theory.)

Next, Nature is so interrogated. You, the human doing it, can make this interrogation from arm's length, or across the street, or from an orbital distance around a planet, or from interstellar distance, or even from a few billion parsecs away. However, you must have some reason to believe that Nature behaves the same across each of those distances. The first three I listed seem obvious, but they are not; you've still got to justify them. The last two I listed do not seem obvious, but there is in fact conclusive justification so profound that we know that Nature has the same properties *everywhere*, from arm's length to the edge of visible space and time. Your ignorance of these simple observations does not relax this property of Nature. EU's particular guess that Nature behaves differently in different places *is* proved false.

After this interrogation of Nature, the "mainstream" interrogator is left with new knowledge about Nature that indicates whether the guess was "false" or "not necessarily false because even though this interrogation doesn't falsify it, tomorrow another one might". On the other hand, the EU interrogator is *not* left with any new knowledge about Nature. Peratt and others see lots of plasma formations that may or may not look like ancient art work, but even if the resemblence is indistiguishable to us, this does not constitute *proof*. This seems to be where you [EU proponents] say "it looks *SOOO* convincing to me, so I'll believe it" while others say "some of those look pretty striking so I'll consider it a possibility, but I won't consider it proved." You think it's a small inductive leap because you're persuaded by mere common sense, but others think it's a large leap because they know that scientific knowledge cannot be proven; our common sense has a history of leading us into error.

Your conclusion that there is a legitimate debate, despite all those specific (and obviously pertinent) investigations, comes from your failure to understand *why* EU is not falsified in the cases it hasn't been, and your ignorance of the cases in which it has. I think this comes from the homogeneous and narrow scope of your reading, and that if you spread out as