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

Ice Age Breasts?

[Shabbs]

Did anyone else read that is Ice Age Breasts?

Cuz I did.

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