| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
 |
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | And possibly the water surface too. |
This is something we have gone into only a little bit. My argument was that the ocean surface is the ultimate 'friable surface' and inimical to plants. |
And it is. In its current state.
| Perhaps even the oceans were once covered with floating plants (if the plants managed to tame the winds they could settle the waves as well). |
So long as there is plenty of land, this is not necessary, surely? |
No. It's a side thought. But....one I find quite likely.
| I suggest that it is the nature of plants to eventually grow everywhere... |
This is not true. |
Trust me. I know the climate stuff inside and out; backward and forward. Indeed; I know more than you do because I've made a study of the implications of your thinking for several years now. Nothing I'm saying here contradicts that thinking. In fact; this Hyperbora Hypothesis I could formulate only because it is the ultimate implication of your theory.
| They've [plants] had zillions of years to learn how to grow in deserts, on permanent ice, at the tops of mountains, on the surface of the sea... and haven't. |
Sure about that? Again. I say we only have a snap-shot of geologic time: A snap-shot taken some unknown stretch of time since the last mass extinction of plant life and (potentially) the reawakening of the oceans.
I am convinced that the trees control the winds. And if they have power over the wind, I suspect they will ultimately eliminate the waves on the oceans, and probably have done so before.
| As our grand-master once pointed out, there are, in our present time, floating weeds that have attempted (thus far unsuccessfully) to colonize water bodies. |
Even the Sargasso Sea tried and failed. If they aren't there now I would have small patience for arguments they used to be. |
But how long have they really had to do it? I suggest; no more than 10,000 years (since the last mass die-off of plants).
If we knew for sure that plants could quell winds and colonize the ocean, and we had a good estimate for how long it takes for them to accomplish this, we could estimate how long ago the plants suffered their last mass extinction by gauging, at present, how far-along is their recovery. But that's a lot of dependencies and apparent unknowable's. Nevertheless; it's an interesting thought experiment. Assume 100% plant coverage as normal: How much have we currently got back from minimum?
| Here's the nifty bit. Scientists tell us that plant life was indeed more abundant in the past. |
When have they said that? |
It's acknowledged that Antarctica once had trees. So that's more plants right there. But, again, that's 15 or 50 million years ago. Not the timeline I'm looking for.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | Ishmael wrote: | | The Sahara desert, according to the latest science, was green in the past. That's practically an entire continent of plant life that was once available to Earth that is now absent. |
If you move the pole a bit, north Africa lines up with a different part of the Americas and hence no desert. |
Yup. I also know that.
But those scientists don't. So..... yeah... I kinda cheated by applying the facts to their model instead of our own.
The primary implication of a green Sahara, as we know, is a shifted pole; not more plant life. However; I do think it reasonable to assume that a green Sahara does mean more plant life. It certainly could mean more plant life and certainly doesn't suggest any less.
| I'm not relying on ancient academics being any better than our own. |
I am. I keep being amazed at how accurate the apparently surviving reports turn out to be.
| I think you've gone down the wrong rabbit hole with this one. I know I'm not supposed to be negative to new theories but I am only hoping to nudge you into better rabbit holes. |
Just remember. Everything you know about climate I am intimately familiar with and accept as foundational. If you think I'm deviating from your base assumptions, it's miscommunication on my part (I'm writing all this off the cuff). I assume your model implicitly. But I now know more about it than you do. I really do.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | But we do have good fossil evidence with a good chronology |
Do we?
You yourself have long pointed out that we actually have never found an ancestral human species. It is your conclusion that every alleged ancestral human is really just another great ape---some of which had learned a trick or two (like the beaver has learned to build a dam).
You have also pointed out that Ice destroyed everything in its path.
What if the North is the primary incubator of evolution? I'll save this though. I'll bring it up later.
| There is a limit to how warm the pole can get due to the absent sun for half the year. During those long nights, plants will shut down. This will lower the temperature for six out of twelve months, though not catastrophically. |
I'm not sure plants (as a group) are like that. Temperatures--absolute, diurnal or seasonal--don't seem to bother them that much. As seeds they can survive for centuries apparently. |
Allow me to explain this.
Temperature doesn't determine the plant life. The plant life determines the temperature.
Sounds familiar, eh?
It gets cold at night because plants stop photosynthesizing and transpiring moisture into the air. They "shut down" in the dark. The volume of moisture in the air declines and the total volume of the atmosphere declines accordingly. With less air above the ground, outer space creeps nearer and the air temperature and ground level grows colder.
At the north, nighttime lasts six months of the year (land of the midnight sun). This means that plants there (during Earth's warm periods) had to shut down for an entire season. Even if the poles were hot in summertime, they had to cool down considerably during that long night. It probably got quite frosty.
| If you're going to have warm and cold 'periods' you can't also have a permanent barrier. |
The barrier is only "permanent" in the virtual sense. It lasts for aeons at a time. But it is erected more often and for longer than it collapses. It collapses only periodically (BTW - I know what causes the collapse, but that's a whole other can of worms).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
And possibly the water surface too.
This is something we have gone into only a little bit. My argument was that the ocean surface is the ultimate 'friable surface' and inimical to plants.
And it is. In its current state. |
Fair enough if you can nail it.
| Perhaps even the oceans were once covered with floating plants (if the plants managed to tame the winds they could settle the waves as well). |
I hear you. I am excited by the thought. It's just a rather massive cry-in-aid.
So long as there is plenty of land, this is not necessary, surely?
No. It's a side thought. But....one I find quite likely. |
I get the impression the tail is wagging the dog. Which is good, not bad. But even so...
I suggest that it is the nature of plants to eventually grow everywhere...
This is not true.
Trust me. I know the climate stuff inside and out; backward and forward. Indeed; I know more than you do because I've made a study of the implications of your thinking for several years now. Nothing I'm saying here contradicts that thinking. In fact; this Hyperbora Hypothesis I could formulate only because it is the ultimate implication of your theory. |
I understand that and welcome it from my point of view. It's just building a new thesis on a unknown thesis is going to present... let us say, marketing problems.
They've [plants] had zillions of years to learn how to grow in deserts, on permanent ice, at the tops of mountains, on the surface of the sea... and haven't.
Sure about that? Again. I say we only have a snap-shot of geologic time: A snap-shot taken some unknown stretch of time since the last mass extinction of plant life and (potentially) the reawakening of the oceans. |
That's true but when it is such a blanket effect you cannot overthrow it using the snapshot argument. But it will come in handy at the end.
| I am convinced that the trees control the winds. And if they have power over the wind, I suspect they will ultimately eliminate the waves on the oceans, and probably have done so before. |
There's no doubt I find the introduction of trees as a fundamental force of nature more beguiling than the introduction of placentas.
As our grand-master once pointed out, there are, in our present time, floating weeds that have attempted (thus far unsuccessfully) to colonize water bodies.
Even the Sargasso Sea tried and failed. If they aren't there now I would have small patience for arguments they used to be.
But how long have they really had to do it? I suggest; no more than 10,000 years (since the last mass die-off of plants). |
Fair point. [Don't forget there's the salt-cycle stuff still available.]
| If we knew for sure that plants could quell winds and colonize the ocean, and we had a good estimate for how long it takes for them to accomplish this, we could estimate how long ago the plants suffered their last mass extinction by gauging, at present, how far-along is their recovery. But that's a lot of dependencies and apparent unknowable's. Nevertheless; it's an interesting thought experiment. Assume 100% plant coverage as normal: How much have we currently got back from minimum? |
That's horse and carts before you've even assembled the horses and carts. Though admittedly that's the best time to do it.
Here's the nifty bit. Scientists tell us that plant life was indeed more abundant in the past.
When have they said that?
It's acknowledged that Antarctica once had trees. So that's more plants right there. |
But less elsewhere presumably.
| But, again, that's 15 or 50 million years ago. Not the timeline I'm looking for. |
Maybe junk time scales. Not only are yours all over the place, theirs are too unreliable for pinning spaghetti to the wall.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | Mick Harper wrote: | | Then again, in the circumstances, you had no choice. |
If you are arguing the Wallace Line is due to something that is cyclical and has been going on for aeons, then clearly it is a special plead of unacceptable proportions if you need it to have come to an end just when there were people around to record it. |
There have been many Wallace Lines. Over and over again the events have played out. This makes it inevitable that humans would have witnessed one of these. We happened to catch the marsupial-placental Wallace Line. But we might have witnessed the warmblooded-coldblooded Wallace Line, or the fur-scales Wallace Line, had civilization emerged in eons past.
Warm-bloodedness, fur, hibernation, internal gestation: All of these show evidence of cold adaptiveness. Yet many of these traits are seen in animals now the world over. All of these animals made their way across the equator at times past when the barrier broke down, as it has again in our own time.
But there is one other cold adaptive species that has also made its way across the equator and, I suspect, the most recent-edition of that species only made its way across in historical times.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
HYPERBORIA: MARGIN NOTES
At this point, expect my discussion to be less driven---less directed. I've probably reached the limits of argumentation and may not be able to present such a coherent a case. What I mean is that I am far less sure of what notions I ought to introduce next so material may be less coherent. I still have more "evidence" to present but I may do so in entirely the wrong order.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
I'm not relying on ancient academics being any better than our own.
I am. I keep being amazed at how accurate the apparently surviving reports turn out to be. |
You have never been a big fan of me and Hatty's jaunts down Forgery Lane. If you had, you would not be so accepting of 'apparently surviving reports'. We work on the assumption none of them survived and everything was written after the start of the Age of Discovery. Pretty much. But I won't pursue the matter. If orthodoxy uses them you are certainly entitled to.
I think you've gone down the wrong rabbit hole with this one. I know I'm not supposed to be negative to new theories but I am only hoping to nudge you into better rabbit holes.
Just remember. Everything you know about climate I am intimately familiar with and accept as foundational. If you think I'm deviating from your base assumptions, its miscommunication on my part (I'm writing all this off the cuff). I assume your model implicitly. But I now know more about it than you do. I really do. |
It's you that's always going on about the perils of knowledge but even if you are the ranking peanut in this peanut gallery I've got my rights. I don't think it will be a problem.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
But we do have good fossil evidence with a good chronology
Do we? You yourself have long pointed out that we actually have never found an ancestral human species. It is your conclusion that every alleged ancestral human is really just another great ape---some of which had learned a trick or two (like the beaver has learned to build a dam). |
I was thinking about mammals in general.
| You have also pointed out that Ice destroyed everything in its path. |
This is much more useful. If only the poltroons would recognise it, it would be even more useful.
There is a limit to how warm the pole can get due to the absent sun for half the year. During those long nights, plants will shut down. This will lower the temperature for six out of twelve months, though not catastrophically.
I'm not sure plants (as a group) are like that. Temperatures--absolute, diurnal or seasonal--don't seem to bother them that much. As seeds they can survive for centuries apparently.
Allow me to explain this. Temperature doesn't determine the plant life. The plant life determines the temperature. |
I have already accepted this. I thought I was being helpful!
| Sounds familiar, eh? It gets cold at night because plants stop photosynthesizing and transpiring moisture into the air. They "shut down" in the dark. The volume of moisture in the air declines and the total volume of the atmosphere declines accordingly. With less air above the ground, outer space creeps nearer and the air temperature and ground level grows colder. |
This is pretty radical. The sun not being a source of heat but of light for photosynthesis. It certainly would explain a few things round and about the solar system.
| At the north, nighttime lasts six months of the year (land of the midnight sun). This means that plants there (during Earth's warm periods) had to shut down for an entire season. Even if the poles were hot in summertime, they had to cool down considerably during that long night. It probably got quite frosty. |
I see the implications, however dimly. You've got a very nice tiger by the tail there.
If you're going to have warm and cold 'periods' you can't also have a permanent barrier.
The barrier is only "permanent" in the virtual sense. It lasts for aeons at a time. But it is erected more often and for longer than it collapses. It collapses only periodically (BTW - I know what causes the collapse, but that's a whole other can of worms). |
I've said my piece, I can but marvel.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
Then again, in the circumstances, you had no choice. If you are arguing the Wallace Line is due to something that is cyclical and has been going on for aeons, then clearly it is a special plead of unacceptable proportions if you need it to have come to an end just when there were people around to record it.
There have been many Wallace Lines. Over and over again the events have played out. This makes it inevitable that humans would have witnessed one of these. We happened to catch the marsupial-placental Wallace Line. But we might have witnessed the warmblooded-coldblooded Wallace Line, or the fur-scales Wallace Line, had civilization emerged in eons past. |
Yes, I see this. It's a Gaian technique for exploiting there being two hemispheres. Plenty of levers there.
| Warm-bloodedness, fur, hibernation, internal gestation: All of these show evidence of cold adaptiveness. Yet many of these traits are seen in animals now the world over. All of these animals made their way across the equator at times past when the barrier broke down, as it has again in our own time. But there is one other cold adaptive species that has also made its way across the equator and, I suspect, the most recent-edition of that species only made its way across in historical times. |
It's your turn to rewrite a whole faculty.
| HYPERBORIA: MARGIN NOTES At this point, expect my discussion to be less driven---less directed. I've probably reached the limits of argumentation and may not be able to present such a coherent a case. What I mean is that I am far less sure of what notions I ought to introduce next so material may be less coherent. I still have more "evidence" to present but I may do so in entirely the wrong order. |
Moan, moan, moan.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
HYPERBORIA: MASS EXTINCTION
In all of human history, only one force has ever been observed to eliminate entire species and ecosystems. That force is invasive species.
A.E. demands that we invoke no novel forces and rely only upon what is observed to account for observed phenomenon.
On this basis I long-ago concluded that the extinction of the dinosaurs had wrongly been attributed to a comet, as we have no evidence comets can render any species extinct.
Therefore; dinosaurs must have been wiped out by invaders from another planet.
I know it sounds crazy but, I actually have a reasonable case to make. I'll not get into that here. I don't want to be dismissed as a madman.
But the great advantage of the Hyperboria Hypothesis is that it doesn't require another planet. It makes another planet out of the Earth itself. Three planets, in fact.
For most of its "life cycle," Earth exists as three worlds in one: An isolated temperate world, a temperate world with a frigid frontier, and a torrid world. Species at home in one environment are alien to the other and, if periodically forced together, each species has the potential to produce multiple extinction events.
In fact; given that only invasive species can kill other species, the fact of extinction is evidence in favor of the Hyperborea Hypothesis.
The little flaw in the theory is that the periodic break-down in the tripartite world requires its own extinction-level event and that event has no invasive species to which it can be attributed. To break down the stable ecology, we first must wipe out massive volumes of plant life---and we can't rely on hungry grubs to do it.
On the other hand, this particular event isn't an extinction event. It is an extinction-level event. We aren't looking to wipe out species of trees. We are looking only to cull their numbers. Reducing the number of trees is enough to cause the Earth to cool, and that sets everything in motion.
Now; I happen to know what caused this mass culling of plant-life. But let's just say none of you are yet ready to believe it. So best I not mention it.
Perhaps then we can attribute it to something you could be ready believe. Something like that comet impact I wrote of earlier; for though comets have never been known to eliminate species and ecosystems, they have been known to destroy land surfaces and the trees on them. At the turn of the last century, an asteroid struck Siberia and took out trees for miles around. Maybe, periodically, a sizable comet hits the Earth---say every million years or so. One big enough to take out a huge swath of plant life.
This scenario has the advantage of being pretty-well what science already says about at least some extinctions. The proposed scenario would merely attribute those events to comets indirectly, rather than directly.
If you can believe that, let's say that that's what it was and move on.
Bottom line: Granted some mechanism to periodically cull trees, we are able to attribute every mass extinction event recorded in the fossil record to invasive species. This includes the extinction of the cold-blooded dinosaurs, who roamed an Earth universally hot: One which, even during its periodic "cold" periods, never got so cold as to require warm-blooded forms of life. Those life forms came later. Much later. For our Earth has grown ever colder throughout its long existence.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | You have never been a big fan of me and Hatty's jaunts down Forgery Lane. If you had, you would not be so accepting of 'apparently surviving reports'.. |
Remember. I'm the guy who thinks the entirety of human history is nothing but a lie.
But what I've come to believe is that the stuff that fits least well into the ortho human story is the stuff we ought to pay most attention to.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pete Jones
In: Virginia
|
|
|
|
| Ishmael wrote: |
Remember. I'm the guy who thinks the entirety of human history is nothing but a lie. |
Is there a secret Fomenko section? I'm on Book 5, although I admit to bogging down in Book 4 when he gets really deep into Russian coffins and inscriptions on bells.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Pete Jones wrote: | | Is there a secret Fomenko section? I'm on Book 5, although I admit to bogging down in Book 4 when he gets really deep into Russian coffins and inscriptions on bells. |
I've read them all.
Books I and II are the best.
But I became a skeptic of history before I read Fomenko, though he pushed me over the edge.
Fomenko is best when critiquing the existing history. His atttempts to reconstruct it often fall flat.
His latest book is worth the purchase price, however, just for the section on the Dead Sea Scrolls. Wow.
In the restricted, "Reading Room" section, there's an area where I've discussed some of my own research. The title is, Edward VI: King of Egypt. However; I've shared very little publicly of what I have determined.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pete Jones
In: Virginia
|
|
|
|
| Ishmael wrote: | | His latest book is worth the purchase price, however, just for the section on the Dead Sea Scrolls. Wow. |
What's the title? I can't figure out if what is available on Amazon as separate books are or are not just extracts from the big series
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pete Jones
In: Virginia
|
|
|
|
| Ishmael wrote: | | But I became a skeptic of history before I read Fomenko, though he pushed me over the edge. |
I got started up on it by Gunnar Heinsohn. Funny enough, I read an article on GH in Unz Review by Laurent Guyenot. Then bought Guyenot's book on chronology revision, and in it read a line about "if MJ Harper is correct about Anglo-Saxon [etc etc]" Then I bought all Mick's books, and here I am.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
