Closer to X than to the present
Keith F. Lynch
than to the present, but was closer to the Moon landings than they
are to the present.
What are some other unexpected examples of an event that's closer to
something that sounds ancient than to the present, but is also closer
to something that sounds recent than that event is to the present?
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.
Karl Johanson
news:hdfvvc$2qs$1...@reader1.panix.com...
> The publication of _Gone With the Wind_ was closer to the Civil War
> than to the present, but was closer to the Moon landings than they
> are to the present.
The Civil War was a fake, especially the photos of the flags flapping in the
wind.
> What are some other unexpected examples of an event that's closer to
> something that sounds ancient than to the present, but is also closer
> to something that sounds recent than that event is to the present?
The European discovery of North America was closer to the reign of Caesar
Augustus than to today.
Karl Johanson
Kip Williams
> "Keith F. Lynch"<k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote in message
> news:hdfvvc$2qs$1...@reader1.panix.com...
>> The publication of _Gone With the Wind_ was closer to the Civil War
>> than to the present, but was closer to the Moon landings than they
>> are to the present.
>
> The Civil War was a fake, especially the photos of the flags flapping in the
> wind.
It was photographed on a sound stage in Italy.
Kip W
Doug Wickstr�m
<karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>The European discovery of North America was closer to the reign of Caesar
>Augustus than to today.
How so?
Jette Goldie
Vinland?
--
Jette Goldie
jette....@gmail.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/wolfette/
http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
http://wolfette.livejournal.com/
("reply to" is spamblocked - use the email addy in sig)
Karl Johanson
news:hdks3d$p27$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Doug Wickstr�m wrote:
>> On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 00:03:32 -0800, "Karl Johanson"
>> <karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> The European discovery of North America was closer to the reign of
>>> Caesar Augustus than to today.
>>
>> How so?
>
> Vinland?
Greenland: )
Karl Johanson
Tim Illingworth
<jgold...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>Doug Wickstr�m wrote:
>> On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 00:03:32 -0800, "Karl Johanson"
>> <karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> The European discovery of North America was closer to the reign of Caesar
>>> Augustus than to today.
>>
>> How so?
>
>Vinland?
Vinland discovered: c985-990 AD
Caesar Augustus: d 14 AD
Tim
Doug Wickstr�m
<jgold...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>Doug Wickstr�m wrote:
>> On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 00:03:32 -0800, "Karl Johanson"
>> <karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> The European discovery of North America was closer to the reign of Caesar
>>> Augustus than to today.
>>
>> How so?
>
>Vinland?
OK. Works for me.
Daniel R. Reitman
No, that was the Iwo Jima flag-raising photo.
Dan, ad nauseam
Paul Ciszek
In article <lahtf5961jjh11jns...@4ax.com>,
Tim Illingworth <t...@bellhouse.org.uk> wrote:
>
>Vinland discovered: c985-990 AD
Not that I'm doubting you or anything, but how was that pinned
down to within 5 years?
--
Please reply to: | "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is
pciszek at panix dot com | indistinguishable from malice."
Autoreply is disabled |
cryptoguy
> In article <lahtf5961jjh11jnsg4jurat2n2pvv8...@4ax.com>,
> Tim Illingworth <t...@bellhouse.org.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
> >Vinland discovered: c985-990 AD
>
> Not that I'm doubting you or anything, but how was that pinned
> down to within 5 years?
The date is recorded in the sagas. The Greenlanders were literate.
pt
Keith F. Lynch
No, that was photographed on a sound stage in Arlington. I've been
there. They forgot to remove the prop after the photo was taken, and
it's still there to this day.
David Friedman
nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
> In article <lahtf5961jjh11jns...@4ax.com>,
> Tim Illingworth <t...@bellhouse.org.uk> wrote:
> >
> >Vinland discovered: c985-990 AD
>
> Not that I'm doubting you or anything, but how was that pinned
> down to within 5 years?
This raises the question of why Greenland is to be counted as part of
North America and Iceland is not. Both are islands. Part of Iceland is
"American" geologically speaking--on the American side of the division
between the plates.
Count the relevant part of Iceland, and the date goes back to
870--earlier if you accept the evidence for previous Irish occupation.
Don't count Greenland and the date moves forward to about 1000, when
Leif Ericsson visited Vinland.
Which is still closer to Augustus than to us.
--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of
_Future Imperfect: Technology and Freedom in an Uncertain World_,
Cambridge University Press.
David Friedman
<ddfr-892CD2.1...@newsfarm.phx.highwinds-media.com>,
David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
> In article <hdp9aq$gdv$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
> nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
>
> > In article <lahtf5961jjh11jns...@4ax.com>,
> > Tim Illingworth <t...@bellhouse.org.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > >Vinland discovered: c985-990 AD
> >
> > Not that I'm doubting you or anything, but how was that pinned
> > down to within 5 years?
>
> This raises the question of why Greenland is to be counted as part of
> North America and Iceland is not. Both are islands. Part of Iceland is
> "American" geologically speaking--on the American side of the division
> between the plates.
>
> Count the relevant part of Iceland, and the date goes back to
> 870--earlier if you accept the evidence for previous Irish occupation.
> Don't count Greenland and the date moves forward to about 1000, when
> Leif Ericsson visited Vinland.
>
> Which is still closer to Augustus than to us.
I realized, after posting, that I had misremembered the previous
posts--I thought the claim was being made for Greenland, not for
Vinland. If you count Greenland as part of North America, that moves the
date back almost as far as if you count Iceland.
Keith F. Lynch
> I realized, after posting, that I had misremembered the previous
> posts--I thought the claim was being made for Greenland, not for
> Vinland.
It was.
But *my* original request wasn't just for an event that was closer to
a seemingly-very-long-ago event than to the present, but for one that
was also closer to a seemingly-very-recent event than that seemingly-
very-recent event was to the present.
I gave the example of the publication of _Gone With the Wind_ being
closer to the Civil War than to the present, but closer to the Moon
landings than the Moon landings are to the present.
Another example is that the JFK assasination is closer to World War I
than to the present, but is closer to the Challenger explosion than
the Challenger explosion is to the present.
The seemingly-long ago event has to be not more than four times longer
ago than the seemingly-recent event. Here's a table (as of January 1,
2010, which is less than seven weeks away):
2005:1990 2000:1970 1995:1950 1990:1930 1980:1890 1970:1850 1960:1010
1950:1770 1925:1670 1900:1570 1850:1370 1800:1170 1700:770 1600:370
1508:2
(Actually, this table just looks at January 1st of each year, and
ignores leap years and calendar shifts.)
For instance there's an event which is closer to 1/1/1890 than to the
present, but closer to 1/1/1980 than 1/1/1980 is to the present. Or
rather, there will be in seven more weeks.
Karl Johanson
> In article
> <ddfr-892CD2.1...@newsfarm.phx.highwinds-media.com>,
> David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <hdp9aq$gdv$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
>> nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
>>
>> > In article <lahtf5961jjh11jns...@4ax.com>,
>> > Tim Illingworth <t...@bellhouse.org.uk> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >Vinland discovered: c985-990 AD
>> >
>> > Not that I'm doubting you or anything, but how was that pinned
>> > down to within 5 years?
>>
>> This raises the question of why Greenland is to be counted as part of
>> North America and Iceland is not. Both are islands. Part of Iceland is
>> "American" geologically speaking--on the American side of the division
>> between the plates.
>>
>> Count the relevant part of Iceland, and the date goes back to
>> 870--earlier if you accept the evidence for previous Irish occupation.
>> Don't count Greenland and the date moves forward to about 1000, when
>> Leif Ericsson visited Vinland.
>>
>> Which is still closer to Augustus than to us.
>
> I realized, after posting, that I had misremembered the previous
> posts--I thought the claim was being made for Greenland,
Yes, I was considering the Viking arrival at Greenland as the European
discovery of North America.
not for
> Vinland. If you count Greenland as part of North America, that moves the
> date back almost as far as if you count Iceland.
Quite so.
Karl Johanson
David Friedman
<ddfr-892CD2.1...@newsfarm.phx.highwinds-media.com>,
David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
> > Not that I'm doubting you or anything, but how was that pinned
> > down to within 5 years?
Googling around a little...
Landnamabok says that Erik the Red started the settlement of Greenland
fifteen years before Iceland went Christian, which happened in the year
1000. Herjolf Bardarson was one of those who went with him. His son
Bjarni was in Norway at the time, and got back to Iceland that summer.
Discovering, to his surprise, that his father had left, he decided to
follow him.
He managed to miss Greenland on the first pass and spotted some land
west of it, now believed to have been the coast of North America.
On the other hand, as best I can tell Landnamabok is believed to have
been compiled in the early 12th century. So presumably the information
was initially preserved only in oral tradition.
Karl Johanson
> In article <hdp9aq$gdv$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
> nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
>
>> In article <lahtf5961jjh11jns...@4ax.com>,
>> Tim Illingworth <t...@bellhouse.org.uk> wrote:
>> >
>> >Vinland discovered: c985-990 AD
>>
>> Not that I'm doubting you or anything, but how was that pinned
>> down to within 5 years?
>
> This raises the question of why Greenland is to be counted as part of
> North America and Iceland is not.
The continental divisions are fairly arbitrary in some cases (the best
example being Papau New Guinea divided so one section of it is part of Asia
while the other section is part of Australia / Oceanea). As well, different
countries deliniate the continents differently.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Continental_models.gif
Both are islands. Part of Iceland is
> "American" geologically speaking--on the American side of the division
> between the plates.
>
> Count the relevant part of Iceland, and the date goes back to
> 870--earlier if you accept the evidence for previous Irish occupation.
Hadn't heard of that. Interesting.
> Don't count Greenland and the date moves forward to about 1000, when
> Leif Ericsson visited Vinland.
>
> Which is still closer to Augustus than to us.
Karl Johanson
sigvaldi
wrote:
> In article
> <ddfr-892CD2.10005415112...@newsfarm.phx.highwinds-media.com>,
> David Friedman <d...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>
> > > Not that I'm doubting you or anything, but how was that pinned
> > > down to within 5 years?
>
> Googling around a little...
>
> Landnamabok says that Erik the Red started the settlement of Greenland
> 1000. Herjolf Bardarson was one of those who went with him. His son
> Discovering, to his surprise, that his father had left, he decided to
> follow him.
>
> He managed to miss Greenland on the first pass and spotted some land
> west of it, now believed to have been the coast of North America.
>
> On the other hand, as best I can tell Landnamabok is believed to have
> been compiled in the early 12th century. So presumably the information
> was initially preserved only in oral tradition.
Yes, and based on the most recent carbon dating, some scientists put
the settlement of Iceland as far back as ca 670.
sigvaldi
> David Friedman" <d...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote
>
> > nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
>
> >> In article <lahtf5961jjh11jnsg4jurat2n2pvv8...@4ax.com>,
> >> Tim Illingworth <t...@bellhouse.org.uk> wrote:
>
> >> >Vinland discovered: c985-990 AD
>
> >> Not that I'm doubting you or anything, but how was that pinned
> >> down to within 5 years?
>
> > This raises the question of why Greenland is to be counted as part of
>
> The continental divisions are fairly arbitrary in some cases (the best
> example being Papau New Guinea divided so one section of it is part of Asia
> while the other section is part of Australia / Oceanea). As well, different
> countries deliniate the continents differently.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Continental_models.gif
The world was divided into continents long before the plate-tectonics
theory was accepted.
Let´s not confuse plates with continents (or is India not a part of
Asia?)
> Both are islands. Part ofIcelandis
>
> > "American" geologically speaking--on the American side of the division
> > between the plates.
Pate-tectonics again.
> > Count the relevant part ofIceland, and the date goes back to
Keith F. Lynch
> Yes, and based on the most recent carbon dating, some scientists put
> the settlement of Iceland as far back as ca 670.
Any evidence as to whether it was Norse, Irish, or some other group?
Thanks.
Keith F. Lynch
> David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>> This raises the question of why Greenland is to be counted as part
>> of North America and Iceland is not.
> The continental divisions are fairly arbitrary in some cases (the
> best example being Papau New Guinea divided so one section of it is
> part of Asia while the other section is part of Australia / Oceanea).
I think the division is usually cultural. Greenland was and is
inhabited by Eskimos. Iceland was not.
David Friedman
<e81e8355-3129-4018...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>,
sigvaldi <sig...@binet.is> wrote:
Irish or Norse?
cryptoguy
wrote:
> In article
> <e81e8355-3129-4018-bfeb-0d19343b1...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
> sigvaldi <sigv...@binet.is> wrote:
> > On Nov 15, 6:47 pm, David Friedman <d...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com>
> > wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <ddfr-892CD2.10005415112...@newsfarm.phx.highwinds-media.com>,
> > > David Friedman <d...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Not that I'm doubting you or anything, but how was that pinned
> > > > > down to within 5 years?
>
> > > Googling around a little...
>
> > > Landnamabok says that Erik the Red started the settlement of Greenland
> > > fifteen years beforeIcelandwent Christian, which happened in the year
> > > 1000. Herjolf Bardarson was one of those who went with him. His son
> > > Bjarni was in Norway at the time, and got back toIcelandthat summer.
> > > Discovering, to his surprise, that his father had left, he decided to
> > > follow him.
>
> > > He managed to miss Greenland on the first pass and spotted some land
> > > west of it, now believed to have been the coast of North America.
>
> > > On the other hand, as best I can tell Landnamabok is believed to have
> > > been compiled in the early 12th century. So presumably the information
> > > was initially preserved only in oral tradition.
>
> > Yes, and based on the most recent carbon dating, some scientists put
> > the settlement of Iceland as far back as ca 670.
>
> Irish or Norse?
>
> --
> Author of
> _Future Imperfect: Technology and Freedom in an Uncertain World_,
> Cambridge University Press.
Wikipedia references an article at
http://www.ruv.is/heim/frettir/frett/store64/item310447/
but it's in Icelandic, and my Norse isn't up to it. :-)
pt
Tim McDaniel
<7042f1b6-007a-48b0...@e23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
sigvaldi <sig...@binet.is> wrote:
>Pate-tectonics again.
"I'm not going bald. It's just pate tectonics. My hair is subducting."
I *like* it.
--
Tim McDaniel, tm...@panix.com
sigvaldi
> In article
> <7042f1b6-007a-48b0-8f79-c5befb4b9...@e23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
>
> sigvaldi <sigv...@binet.is> wrote:
> >Pate-tectonics again.
>
> "I'm not going bald. It's just pate tectonics. My hair is subducting."
>
> I *like* it.
>
> --
Oops, there I did it again.
I´m not going bald either, I´m just growing forehead..........
sigvaldi
> sigvaldi <sigv...@binet.is> wrote:
> > Yes, and based on the most recent carbon dating, some scientists put
>
> Any evidence as to whether it was Norse, Irish, or some other group?
> Thanks.
No, it is much too soon for that. My guess is that it was a mixture,
Norse that had settled in Ireland and Scotland.
sigvaldi
wrote:
> In article
> <e81e8355-3129-4018-bfeb-0d19343b1...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
> sigvaldi <sigv...@binet.is> wrote:
> > On Nov 15, 6:47 pm, David Friedman <d...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com>
> > wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <ddfr-892CD2.10005415112...@newsfarm.phx.highwinds-media.com>,
> > > David Friedman <d...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Not that I'm doubting you or anything, but how was that pinned
> > > > > down to within 5 years?
>
> > > Googling around a little...
>
> > > Landnamabok says that Erik the Red started the settlement of Greenland
> > > fifteen years beforeIcelandwent Christian, which happened in the year
> > > 1000. Herjolf Bardarson was one of those who went with him. His son
> > > Bjarni was in Norway at the time, and got back toIcelandthat summer.
> > > Discovering, to his surprise, that his father had left, he decided to
> > > follow him.
>
> > > He managed to miss Greenland on the first pass and spotted some land
> > > west of it, now believed to have been the coast of North America.
>
> > > On the other hand, as best I can tell Landnamabok is believed to have
> > > been compiled in the early 12th century. So presumably the information
> > > was initially preserved only in oral tradition.
>
> > Yes, and based on the most recent carbon dating, some scientists put
>
> Irish or Norse?
>
I guess both. Icelanders are descended by a mixture of Irish and Norse.
sigvaldi
wrote:
> In article <hdp9aq$gd...@reader1.panix.com>,
> nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
>
> > In article <lahtf5961jjh11jnsg4jurat2n2pvv8...@4ax.com>,
> > Tim Illingworth <t...@bellhouse.org.uk> wrote:
>
> > >Vinland discovered: c985-990 AD
>
> > Not that I'm doubting you or anything, but how was that pinned
> > down to within 5 years?
>
> This raises the question of why Greenland is to be counted as part of
> "American" geologically speaking--on the American side of the division
> between the plates.
Yes, but the plate tectonics theory only got accepted in the last
couple of decades, people used to divide the world into continents
thousands of years before that so "geologically speaking" has got
nothing to do with anything.
Or do you not consider India to be a part of Asia? It is on a seperate
plate.
> Count the relevant part ofIceland, and the date goes back to
> 870--earlier if you accept the evidence for previous Irish occupation.
> Don't count Greenland and the date moves forward to about 1000, when
> Leif Ericsson visited Vinland.
>
> Which is still closer to Augustus than to us.
>
> --
> http://www.daviddfriedman.com/http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
David Friedman
<b094467b-45d3-49db...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
sigvaldi <sig...@binet.is> wrote:
> > This raises the question of why Greenland is to be counted as part of
> > North America andIcelandis not. Both are islands. Part ofIcelandis
> > "American" geologically speaking--on the American side of the division
> > between the plates.
>
> Yes, but the plate tectonics theory only got accepted in the last
> couple of decades, people used to divide the world into continents
> thousands of years before that so "geologically speaking" has got
> nothing to do with anything.
> Or do you not consider India to be a part of Asia? It is on a seperate
> plate.
And often described as a "subcontinent."
--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
David Friedman
<eee575cf-8693-4fdb...@e23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
sigvaldi <sig...@binet.is> wrote:
I thought the usual theory was that the earlier Irish settlers, if they
existed, left when the Norse showed up c. 870 A.D., and the Irish
contribution to Icelandic genetics was mostly via Irish slave women and
some Norse-Irish from the Norse settlements in Ireland.
If so, then any settlement back in c. 670 would be irrelevant to the
descent of modern Icelanders and could--I was guessing probably
would--have been entirely Irish, possibly monks looking for a suitably
lonely hermitage.
David Friedman
<4062e90f-7142-4cc6...@p35g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
sigvaldi <sig...@binet.is> wrote:
In 670 A.D.? Isn't that a little early?
sigvaldi
wrote:
> In article
> <4062e90f-7142-4cc6-967d-a32a19696...@p35g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
>
> sigvaldi <sigv...@binet.is> wrote:
> > On Nov 15, 9:24 pm, "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> > > sigvaldi <sigv...@binet.is> wrote:
> > > > Yes, and based on the most recent carbon dating, some scientists put
> > > > the settlement ofIcelandas far back as ca 670.
>
> > > Any evidence as to whether it was Norse, Irish, or some other group?
> > > Thanks.
>
> > No, it is much too soon for that. My guess is that it was a mixture,
> > Norse that had settled in Ireland and Scotland.
>
> In 670 A.D.? Isn't that a little early?
>
It is thought that the Norse started to move about the North sea
around 600 AD so it is not that early.
sigvaldi
wrote:
> In article
> <eee575cf-8693-4fdb-8397-4b9ac7e19...@e23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
> some Norse-Irish from the Norse settlements in Ireland.
Well, rather vice versa, a few slaves and most as mixed Norse/Celtic.
Slaves in Iceland were of a very mixed origin, some were Celtic, some
Norse and some Wendic or other Slavic origin.
The story of Irish hermits preceding the Norse settlement is not
considered very likely.
sigvaldi
wrote:
> In article
> <b094467b-45d3-49db-88df-6decbbc17...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
>
> sigvaldi <sigv...@binet.is> wrote:
> > > This raises the question of why Greenland is to be counted as part of
> > > North America andIcelandis not. Both are islands. Part ofIcelandis
> > > "American" geologically speaking--on the American side of the division
> > > between the plates.
>
> > Yes, but the plate tectonics theory only got accepted in the last
> > couple of decades, people used to divide the world into continents
> > thousands of years before that so "geologically speaking" has got
> > nothing to do with anything.
> > Or do you not consider India to be a part of Asia? It is on a seperate
> > plate.
>
> And often described as a "subcontinent."
>
Speaking of "subcontinents".
Icelandic geologists now regard the upper parts of Árnessýsla/
Rangárvallasýsla in the south of Iceland as being a seperate plate,
called the Hreppar plate. Thingvellir is no longer regarded as being
on the European/American boundary but the Hreppar/America boundary.
David Friedman
<0a6869be-97ca-48ef...@l13g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
sigvaldi <sig...@binet.is> wrote:
I may be misremembering, but I thought the big genetic study had found
much more Irish ancestry in the female line--either mitochondrial DNA vs
nuclear, or X vs Y, or something else. If so, that would support the
"female Irish slave" version.
David Friedman
<1561d633-5d2d-4b91...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
sigvaldi <sig...@binet.is> wrote:
> On Nov 16, 9:10�pm, David Friedman <d...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com>
> wrote:
> > In article
> > <b094467b-45d3-49db-88df-6decbbc17...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > �sigvaldi <sigv...@binet.is> wrote:
> > > > This raises the question of why Greenland is to be counted as part of
> > > > North America andIcelandis not. Both are islands. Part ofIcelandis
> > > > "American" geologically speaking--on the American side of the division
> > > > between the plates.
> >
> > > Yes, but the plate tectonics theory only got accepted in the last
> > > couple of decades, people used to divide the world into continents
> > > thousands of years before that so "geologically speaking" has got
> > > nothing to do with anything.
> > > Or do you not consider India to be a part of Asia? It is on a seperate
> > > plate.
> >
> > And often described as a "subcontinent."
> >
>
> Speaking of "subcontinents".
> Icelandic geologists now regard the upper parts of �rness�sla/
> Rang�rvallas�sla in the south of Iceland as being a seperate plate,
> called the Hreppar plate. Thingvellir is no longer regarded as being
> on the European/American boundary but the Hreppar/America boundary.
That's terrible. I thought that Thingvellir, where all the interesting
stuff happened, being located precisely on the boundary between America
and Europe was a perfectly proper accident--almost evidence for divine
intervention.
Karl Johanson
news:b094467b-45d3-49db...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 15, 6:00 pm, David Friedman <d...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com>
>> This raises the question of why Greenland is to be counted as part of
>> North America andIcelandis not. Both are islands. Part ofIcelandis
>> "American" geologically speaking--on the American side of the division
>> between the plates.
>Yes, but the plate tectonics theory only got accepted in the last
>couple of decades, people used to divide the world into continents
>thousands of years before that
Are you sure that "thousands of years" is correct there?
>so "geologically speaking" has got
>nothing to do with anything.
>Or do you not consider India to be a part of Asia? It is on a seperate
>plate.
> Count the relevant part ofIceland, and the date goes back to
> 870--earlier if you accept the evidence for previous Irish occupation.
> Don't count Greenland and the date moves forward to about 1000, when
> Leif Ericsson visited Vinland.
>
> Which is still closer to Augustus than to us.
Yes.
Karl Johanson
Keith F. Lynch
> "sigvaldi" <sig...@binet.is> wrote:
>> Yes, but the plate tectonics theory only got accepted in the last
>> couple of decades,
More like 40 to 50 years ago.
>> people used to divide the world into continents thousands of years
>> before that
> Are you sure that "thousands of years" is correct there?
I know the ancient Greeks had the concepts of Europe, Asia, and
Africa, though those concepts have since been extended until they
reached the oceans.
sigvaldi
wrote:
> In article
> <0a6869be-97ca-48ef-add6-c63d97056...@l13g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
>
> sigvaldi <sigv...@binet.is> wrote:
> > On Nov 16, 9:13 pm, David Friedman <d...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com>
> > wrote:
> > > I thought the usual theory was that the earlier Irish settlers, if they
> > > existed, left when the Norse showed up c. 870 A.D., and the Irish
> > > contribution toIcelandicgenetics was mostly via Irish slave women and
> > > some Norse-Irish from the Norse settlements in Ireland.
>
> > Well, rather vice versa, a few slaves and most as mixed Norse/Celtic.
> > Norse and some Wendic or other Slavic origin.
> > The story of Irish hermits preceding the Norse settlement is not
> > considered very likely.
>
> I may be misremembering, but I thought the big genetic study had found
> much more Irish ancestry in the female line--either mitochondrial DNA vs
> nuclear, or X vs Y, or something else. If so, that would support the
> "female Irish slave" version.
Or the version where the young Norwegian male moves to Scotland/
Ireland to get himself a bride and starts a family.
By the time they reach Iceland he may be the only Norse in an
otherwise Scottish/Irish family.
sigvaldi
> Karl Johanson <karljohan...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> > "sigvaldi" <sigv...@binet.is> wrote:
> >> Yes, but the plate tectonics theory only got accepted in the last
> >> couple of decades,
>
> More like 40 to 50 years ago.
During the eruptions of the Krafla area in North-Iceland scientists
used observations of the surface movements to augment their
understanding of plate tectonics. That was in 1975-1984 and plate-
tectonics was not a generally accepted science until after that time.
sigvaldi
> Karl Johanson <karljohan...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> >> This raises the question of why Greenland is to be counted as part
> > The continental divisions are fairly arbitrary in some cases (the
> > best example being Papau New Guinea divided so one section of it is
> > part of Asia while the other section is part of Australia / Oceanea).
>
> I think the division is usually cultural. Greenland was and is
> inhabited by Eskimos. Icelandwas not.
I am not sure of that, there were no Inuit in Greenland (except some
that may have been in the extreme north) when it was settled by the
Norse. The Norse Greenlanders did not come into contact with Inuits
until ca 1200.
cryptoguy
The Wikipedia article on Greenland's prehistory indicates that the
Inuit have been there for a very long time, but were not in the south
western coast areas settled by the Norse at the time they arrived. The
Thule Culture Eskimos were gradually moving down the coast, and their
expanding territory collided with the Norse about the time the
Norseman's colonies were failing.
pt
Mike Van Pelt
Keith F. Lynch <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>> "sigvaldi" <sig...@binet.is> wrote:
>>> Yes, but the plate tectonics theory only got accepted in the last
>>> couple of decades,
>
>More like 40 to 50 years ago.
It's definitely less than 50 years ago, because I recall when
it was considered controversial, if not pseudoscience.
40 years ago, maybe, but definitely not longer than that.
--
Mike Van Pelt "If they're going to talk about
mvp.at.calweb.com Camelot, then we get to talk about
KE6BVH The Lady in the Lake." - ?
Keith F. Lynch
> Keith F. Lynch <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>> Karl Johanson <karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>>> "sigvaldi" <sig...@binet.is> wrote:
>>>> Yes, but the plate tectonics theory only got accepted in the last
>>>> couple of decades,
>> More like 40 to 50 years ago.
> It's definitely less than 50 years ago, because I recall when it was
> considered controversial, if not pseudoscience.
> 40 years ago, maybe, but definitely not longer than that.
When did they start being able to track continental drift from one
day to the next by observing quasars with radio telescopes? I know
quasars were discovered 46 years ago.
I remember reading that continental drift was quackery, but I often
read books that were a few years out of date.
David Loewe, Jr.
<k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>Mike Van Pelt <m...@web1.calweb.com> wrote:
>> Keith F. Lynch <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>>> Karl Johanson <karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>>>> "sigvaldi" <sig...@binet.is> wrote:
>>>>> Yes, but the plate tectonics theory only got accepted in the last
>>>>> couple of decades,
>
>>> More like 40 to 50 years ago.
>
>> It's definitely less than 50 years ago, because I recall when it was
>> considered controversial, if not pseudoscience.
>
>> 40 years ago, maybe, but definitely not longer than that.
>
>When did they start being able to track continental drift from one
>day to the next by observing quasars with radio telescopes? I know
>quasars were discovered 46 years ago.
>
>I remember reading that continental drift was quackery, but I often
>read books that were a few years out of date.
?
Wikipedia seems to indicate that Continental Drift was well established
before you were born.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_drift
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics
--
"Why is it, Scott, that we always have to respect their cultural context?
Why is it that they never seem to respect ours?"
President John P. Ryan in Executive Orders
David Friedman
"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 03:21:06 +0000 (UTC), "Keith F. Lynch"
> <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>
> >Mike Van Pelt <m...@web1.calweb.com> wrote:
> >> Keith F. Lynch <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> >>> Karl Johanson <karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> >>>> "sigvaldi" <sig...@binet.is> wrote:
>
> >>>>> Yes, but the plate tectonics theory only got accepted in the last
> >>>>> couple of decades,
> >
> >>> More like 40 to 50 years ago.
> >
> >> It's definitely less than 50 years ago, because I recall when it was
> >> considered controversial, if not pseudoscience.
> >
> >> 40 years ago, maybe, but definitely not longer than that.
> >
> >When did they start being able to track continental drift from one
> >day to the next by observing quasars with radio telescopes? I know
> >quasars were discovered 46 years ago.
> >
> >I remember reading that continental drift was quackery, but I often
> >read books that were a few years out of date.
>
> ?
>
> Wikipedia seems to indicate that Continental Drift was well established
> before you were born.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_drift
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics
As I read those, the theory wasn't widely accepted until well into the
sixties or perhaps a little later, although the idea was being argued
earlier than that. So about forty years ago.
David V. Loewe, Jr
And as *I* read those, Continental Drift was well established. The
mechanism, Plate Tectonics, was not necessarily.
--
"And so it was that later
As the Miller told his tale
That her face, at first just ghostly
Turned a whiter shade of pale"
Keith Reid & Gary Brooker
David Friedman
"David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
> >> Wikipedia seems to indicate that Continental Drift was well established
> >> before you were born.
> >>
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_drift
> >>
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics
> >
> >As I read those, the theory wasn't widely accepted until well into the
> >sixties or perhaps a little later, although the idea was being argued
> >earlier than that. So about forty years ago.
>
> And as *I* read those, Continental Drift was well established. The
> mechanism, Plate Tectonics, was not necessarily.
"But without detailed evidence and a force sufficient to drive the
movement, the theory was not generally accepted:the Earth might have a
solid crust and a liquid core, but there seemed to be no way that
portions of the crust could move around."
"The first evidence that the lithospheric plates did move came with the
discovery of variable magnetic field direction in rocks of differing
ages, first revealed at a symposium in Tasmania in 1956. Initially
theorized as an expansion of the global crust,[11] later collaborations
developed the plate tectonic theory, which accounted for spreading as
the consequence of new rock upwelling, but avoided the need for an
expanding globe by recognizing subduction zones and conservative
translation faults. It was at this point that Wegener's theory became
generally accepted by the scientific community."
So it becomes generally accepted only at some point after 1956, when
"later collaborations developed the plate tectonic theory ... ."
David G. Bell
<934fda3b-88ef-4894...@u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
sig...@binet.is "sigvaldi" wrote:
My rcollection is that it was appearing in respectable popular science
books somewhere around that time, as the newly accepted theory.
[Googles]
"Restless Earth" was published in 1972. It looks as though a lot of
elements were coming together in the 1960s.
--
David G. Bell -- SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.
On the horizon, a carrier task force of the Salvation Navy was turning
into the wind, preparing to launch Zeppelins.
David Loewe, Jr.
<dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
> "David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
>> >>>I remember reading that continental drift was quackery, but I often
>> >>>read books that were a few years out of date.
>
>> >> Wikipedia seems to indicate that Continental Drift was well established
>> >> before you were born.
>> >>
>> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_drift
>> >>
>> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics
>> >
>> >As I read those, the theory wasn't widely accepted until well into the
>> >sixties or perhaps a little later, although the idea was being argued
>> >earlier than that. So about forty years ago.
>>
>> And as *I* read those, Continental Drift was well established. The
>> mechanism, Plate Tectonics, was not necessarily.
>
>"But without detailed evidence and a force sufficient to drive the
>movement, the theory was not generally accepted:the Earth might have a
>solid crust and a liquid core, but there seemed to be no way that
>portions of the crust could move around."
>
>"The first evidence that the lithospheric plates did move came with the
>discovery of variable magnetic field direction in rocks of differing
>ages, first revealed at a symposium in Tasmania in 1956. Initially
>theorized as an expansion of the global crust,[11] later collaborations
>developed the plate tectonic theory, which accounted for spreading as
>the consequence of new rock upwelling, but avoided the need for an
>expanding globe by recognizing subduction zones and conservative
>translation faults. It was at this point that Wegener's theory became
>generally accepted by the scientific community."
>
>So it becomes generally accepted only at some point after 1956, when
>"later collaborations developed the plate tectonic theory ... ."
"Continental drift is the movement of the Earth's continents relative to
each other. The hypothesis that continents 'drift' was first put forward
by Abraham Ortelius in 1596 and was fully developed by Alfred Wegener in
1912. However, it was not until the development of the theory of plate
tectonics in the 1960s, that a sufficient geological explanation of that
movement was found."
"The hypothesis that the continents had once formed a single landmass
before breaking apart and drifting to their present locations was fully
formulated by Alfred Wegener in 1912.[2] Although Wegener's theory was
formed independently and was more complete than those of his
predecessors, Wegener later credited a number of past authors with
similar ideas:[3][4] Franklin Coxworthy (between 1848 and 1890),[5]
Roberto Mantovani (between 1889 and 1909), William Henry Pickering
(1907)[6] and Frank Bursley Taylor (1908)."
It seems to me that you are confusing the notion of continental drift -
which has a long history - with the discovery of the explanation, which
is plate tectonics.
Keith said it was considered "quackery." That is clearly not the case.
--
"My idea of gun control is a steady aim."
- Jack Kemp
David Friedman
"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
No. I am saying that the notion of continental drift, although it has a
long history, was not generally accepted until plate tectonics was
available to provide a mechanism. "It was at this point that Wegener's
theory became generally accepted by the scientific community."
The claim, I think by you although I'm not sure, was:
"Wikipedia seems to indicate that Continental Drift was well established
before you were born."
"Well established" doesn't merely mean that someone has proposed the
theory but that it is widely accepted.
Robert Sneddon
<ddfr-076197.1...@newsfarm.phx.highwinds-media.com>, David
Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> writes
>
>No. I am saying that the notion of continental drift, although it has a
>long history, was not generally accepted until plate tectonics was
>available to provide a mechanism. "It was at this point that Wegener's
>theory became generally accepted by the scientific community."
We were taught about continental drift in Geography class at school in
the late Sixties. Memory fades but I don't recall it being particularly
controversial. I don't think the plate tectonics mechanism was mentioned
in the coursework though, just the fact of continental drift happening.
By that time accurate surveying techniques had shown continental drift
in action so it was not unsupported theoretical speculation.
>
>The claim, I think by you although I'm not sure, was:
>
>"Wikipedia seems to indicate that Continental Drift was well established
>before you were born."
>
>"Well established" doesn't merely mean that someone has proposed the
>theory but that it is widely accepted.
There were a lot of observable phenomena that science had no
explanation for until the knowledge base was expanded. I had an old
"children's guide to science" book from the 1920s that explained the
energy output of the Sun in terms of waggonloads of coal burnt per
second -- I can't recall the number but it was lots and lots. At the
time the book was written science didn't know HOW stars generated so
much energy as atomic theory hadn't advanced sufficiently to model
fusion processes, but we certainly knew stars did generate energy and we
could even measure the output levels to a large degree of accuracy.
--
To reply, my gmail address is nojay1 Robert Sneddon
Paul Dormer
(Robert Sneddon) wrote:
>
> We were taught about continental drift in Geography class at school in
> the late Sixties. Memory fades but I don't recall it being particularly
> controversial. I don't think the plate tectonics mechanism was
mentioned
> in the coursework though, just the fact of continental drift happening.
> By that time accurate surveying techniques had shown continental drift
> in action so it was not unsupported theoretical speculation.
When I did a geology O-level in 1969, continental drift was not mentioned
at all. Indeed, the implication of much of the course was that the
continents did not drift.
David Friedman
p...@pauldormer.cix.co.uk (Paul Dormer) wrote:
My (geologist) wife was in college in the early seventies, and remembers
continental drift being seen as something pretty new then.
I have vague memories of an exhibit on geology in the Field Museum in
Chicago that we saw about twenty years ago, and my wife commenting that
it had apparently been put together before continental drift had become
accepted. I don't know how old the exhibit was.
Alan Woodford
Coincidentally, I've just finished reading the 1959 revised edition of
George Gamow's Biography of the Earth :-)
It was revised from the 1941 edition, as the solar collision theory of
the origin of the planets had fallen out of favour.
It does feature some limited continental drift - the theory was that
the continents had broken up and drifted into their current positions
fairly early in the Earth's history, and then were locked in place as
the rest of the crust froze, before the moon and the oceans were
formed.
It didn't really strike me as credible, but it was certainly an
interesting half-way house towards the modern continental drift
theory.
Alan Woodford
The Greying Lensman!
David Harmon
<dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote,
>My (geologist) wife was in college in the early seventies, and remembers
>continental drift being seen as something pretty new then.
When did somebody get the idea to match up coastal features east and
west of the Atlantic ocean?
David V. Loewe, Jr
wrote:
1597.
--
"...you know, it seems to me you suffer from the problem of
wanting a tailored fit in an off the rack world."
Dennis Juds
Keith F. Lynch
> When did somebody get the idea to match up coastal features east and
> west of the Atlantic ocean?
In the 1500s, almost as soon as reasonably accurate maps were available.
I came up with the same conjecture myself when I was a child. I asked
my father about it, and he said it was an old crackpot theory, and
that the shapes were just a coincidence, like clouds that look like
familiar things.
Karl Johanson
news:he4uii$2fm$2...@reader1.panix.com...
> David Harmon <b...@example.invalid> wrote:
>> When did somebody get the idea to match up coastal features east and
>> west of the Atlantic ocean?
>
> In the 1500s, almost as soon as reasonably accurate maps were available.
>
> I came up with the same conjecture myself when I was a child. I asked
> my father about it, and he said it was an old crackpot theory, and
> that the shapes were just a coincidence, like clouds that look like
> familiar things.
My mother mentioned the idea in school and the teacher laughed at her.
Karl Johanson
Daniel R. Reitman
<k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>> No, that was the Iwo Jima flag-raising photo.
>
>No, that was photographed on a sound stage in Arlington. I've been
>there. They forgot to remove the prop after the photo was taken, and
>it's still there to this day.
/me goes back and inserts a smiley.
Dan, ad nauseam
Keith F. Lynch
> There were a lot of observable phenomena that science had no
> explanation for until the knowledge base was expanded. I had an old
> "children's guide to science" book from the 1920s that explained the
> energy output of the Sun in terms of waggonloads of coal burnt per
> second -- I can't recall the number but it was lots and lots. At
> the time the book was written science didn't know HOW stars generated
> so much energy as atomic theory hadn't advanced sufficiently to
> model fusion processes, but we certainly knew stars did generate
> energy and we could even measure the output levels to a large degree
> of accuracy.
I have a book from 1914 that says that the sun's energy probably comes
from radioactivity. That's not quite right, but it's much closer to
right than the 19th century ideas that the sun was a coal fire or was
heated by contraction or by meteors and comets falling into it. It
was realized that the if any or all of those were the source of the
sun's energy, it couldn't be more than a few tens of thousands of
years old, nor could it last more than a few tens of thousands more
years. It was also realized that if Earth's internal heat was
primordial, the planet couldn't be more than a few tens of thousands
of years old even if it started as a ball of white-hot molten lava.