Posted on 02/16/2005 11:01:16 AM PST by Alter Kaker
NEW YORK (AP) -- A new analysis of bones unearthed nearly 40 years ago in Ethiopia has pushed the fossil record of modern humans back to nearly 200,000 years ago -- perhaps close to the dawn of the species.
Researchers determined that the specimens are around 195,000 years old. Previously, the oldest known fossils of Homo sapiens were Ethiopian skulls dated to about 160,000 years ago.
Genetic studies estimate that Homo sapiens arose about 200,000 years ago, so the new research brings the fossil record more in line with that, said John Fleagle of Stony Brook University in New York, an author of the study.
The fossils were found in 1967 near the Omo River in southwestern Ethiopia. One location yielded Omo I, which includes part of a skull plus skeletal bones. Another site produced Omo II, which has more of a skull but no skeletal bones. Neither specimen has a complete face.
Although Omo II shows more primitive characteristics than Omo I, scientists called both specimens Homo sapiens and assigned a tentative age of 130,000 years.
Now, after visiting the discovery sites, analyzing their geology and testing rock samples with more modern dating techniques, Fleagle and colleagues report in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature that both specimens are 195,000 years old, give or take 5,000 years.
Fleagle said the more primitive traits of Omo II may mean the two specimens came from different but overlapping Homo sapiens populations, or that they just represent natural variation within a single population.
To find the age of the skulls, the researchers determined that volcanic rock lying just below the sediment that contained the fossils was about 196,000 years old. They then found evidence that the fossil-bearing sediment was deposited soon after that time.
Paul Renne, director of the Berkeley Geochronology Center, which specializes in dating rocks, said the researchers made "a reasonably good argument" to support their dating of the fossils.
"It's more likely than not," he said, calling the work "very exciting and important."
Rick Potts, director of the Human Origins Program at the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History, said he considered the case for the new fossil ages "very strong." The work suggests that "we're right on the cusp of where the genetic evidence says the origin of modern humans ... should be," he said.
G. Philip Rightmire, a paleoanthropologist at Binghamton University in New York, said he believes the Omo fossils show Homo sapiens plus a more primitive ancestor. The find appears to represent the aftermath of the birth of Homo sapiens, when it was still living alongside its ancestral species, he said.
That's a wrinkle that I missed concerning what happens in transit to a photon when a quantum jump occurs. The energy is lowered but the wavelength is constant. Actually, though, that's just another way of saying something I did catch: lowering c is one way to lower the energy of a photon if you're playing with E = hc/l. Playing with l is another.
As you go on to note, there is still a problem if the sun is cooking off 11 million times as fast 6,000 years ago. There are 11 million times more photons than now. Just as you are sneaking up on my long-awaited answer, however, you seem to descend into "Mumble! Mumble! Mumble!" "Hand wave! Hand wave!"
Setterfield's explanation of this runs through the paper. In summary, if we take the observed redshift z=~1.5, multiply by the quantum delta-c of 63.74 c-now (equation 119), and multiply by the Rydberg quantum number 1152pi^4 (equation 86), you get the range of 11 million c-now.
Hello!? You're breaking up!
What observed redshift? I want to know how the universe and Earth could have been inhabitable 6,000 years ago. We're being barraged with photons. Barraged! Or are we? If we aren't, why does Setterfield claim that cDK accounts for the apparent radiometric ages of the Sun and Earth? That's my main question. Did you understand it? Do you think you answered it? Why don't I have an answer?
At this point, I can freely admit these explanations are new to me and healthy doubt is still in play.
Don't know about healthy, but doubts no doubt abound.
2) Observed time: Here VR briefly seems to raise more of a personal than a scientific concern: Yet here's Adam living and aging like a live-fast-die-young bacterium. I don't follow the speculative chain. We agree that nucleons and electrons are sped up by factor of 10^7, but I can't make it follow that Everything electrical or chemical is speeded up with c or that aging will "fly". I don't know whether weaker chemical bonds are a valid answer, they may be a mistake of Fryman; but it seems like VR should expand on why these effects are so certain. Electrons are "flying" at incredible speed around nuclei now without doing any damage.
I certainly never claimed to be certain of my modeling of anything Setterfieldian. Rather the opposite, I don't see how anyone can model that mess. That seems to comfort you, that so far no one can absolutely definitively prove you wrong, since the whole thing is such an unGodly (Sorry!) muddle.
It doesn't work like that in science. To be useful you need to be clear. To be right, you need to be clearly right, or at least the most clearly right so far.
However, I believe the correct additional cancellation factors are the decreased energy of each particle (previously discounted by VR)...
I have to insist on what I already explained. Whether the body is Adam's or Snapshut the pre-dynastic Egyptian's, that body is just as much lighter as any flying particle, every atom in proportion. The flying particles have less mass, but the organic molecules they bang into in somebody's body have less mass so the collision has just as much potential for damage on a per particle basis. And there might be 11 million or 11 million squared--I forget--more particles flying. That would be bad.
Absolutely incoherently, IMHO. Again, I don't find myself in the posession of a single answer.
I don't get it. By the way, did you hear the one about....;-)
He unambiguously says that the Sun is really only about 6,000 years old, the Ussherian age. I think either he or Dolphin even uses the word. It looks 4.5 billion years old to most of us because when c was 11 million times faster, solar fusion was 11 million times faster. Supposedly, none of this changes anything. If you could find an old movie of 6,000 years ago, it would look like now.
I'm saying that's ridiculous. Tell me where I'm wrong, but every fusion event is at least one photon. That's how the excess, non-mass energy leaves the newly fused atom. The photon may get absorbed and re-emitted N times before it ever reaches Earth, but that's all a wash. You can't really hide the greater number of photons. In fact, you need them to maintain Setterfields "... the energy flux is the same."
But not just any old combination of energy works. You either redshift those suckers down to where they can't resolve the Earth, much less human eyes, or the energy flux is not the same.
Am I imposing too many conditions? Feel free to question my assumptions. In fact, let me question some for you.
How old is the Sun? I assume 6,000 years based on Ussher, Dolpin, and Setterfield.
How steep is the decay curve? I'm using the material in the Dolphin "Implications of Non-Constant etc." paper.
Are the total reaction rate changes sufficient to make a 6,000 year old Earth look 4.5 billion years old? This is a claim I have encountered frequently including repeatedly from the primary cDK-ers.
Does every fusion reaction generate a photon? If not, where does the lost mass go?
Was the Earth inhabited when the stars were cooking off nuclear fuel at 11 million times the current rate if that was ever happening at all?
Does something funny happen to that optical constant? I mean the one that says the smallest thing you can see with a photon is the wavelength times ... I think it's about .6 but it doesn't matter.
Yellowish polarized lenses cut haze wonderfully because they subtract all the blue (which thus looks black). The blue end of the visible spectrum is shorter wave and more smeared by dust and fog. Subtract the blue, leave the red, and the image gets crisper.
That's nice, but you can only see so red. "Redder" than red is infrared and you can't see it. Light can get so "red" you need a two-mile long antenna to "see" it. Submarines trail such long wires behind them to use their LF (low frequency) links underwater.
If the universe is inhabited and starlight is really, really red, do life forms have eyes? How do they work?
Here ya go. :-)
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm
:-)
Extremely accurate usually up to 50,000 years, when we switch to other dating methods, although it can be exteneded to around 100,000 with some special techniques. The accuracy depends on how old the sample you're looking at is, the quality of the sample, and the quality of the equipment used to analyze. But in any event, the date is usually accurate to well within 1%. The fact that we can use C-14 for archaeology (in fact, its main use) testifies to this.
If carbon dating is accurate how come the first experiment on how old is this earth is different from the second and on the thirds or so on?
C-14 testing has never been used to measure the age of the earth, nor would it ever be.
Or could this be as phony as the evolution theory THAT IS CONFUSING THE CHILDREN IN SCHOOL?
You clearly haven't had much of a scientific education. So who are you to expound on subjects you don't understand?
Thanks for the information!
That's a great site isn't it. Explains stuff really well for the modestly scientifically knowledgeable layman. I've used the CMB stuff in it before in these debates.
I'm going to find a place in the List-O-Links for that website.
Just for giggles, where did you get that redshift? According to Setterfield's paper, the highest z values (corresponding to the oldest objects in the universe) are at about z = 14. I would expect in a Setterfieldian universe that light arriving at z = 14 was emitted no earlier than 6K years ago. I'm reasonably sure there are no "earlier times" in his universe, whatever may be true of yours or mine.
Everybody ready? This re-edit makes changes in bold, including correcting my initial more speculative hypothesis which VadeRetro showed was still incomplete and which I admitted was experimental and falsifiable. I hit paydirt by Googling "redshift definition" and, wouldn't you know, setterfield.org came up in the top five. He also is #1 for "atomic orbit energy". The details we seek are in Atomic Quantum States, Light, and the Redshift (corrected), with VR's concerns particularly addressed extensively in 6.2-6.3. The answers really are in there, and I am continuing to trust VR really wants them, as stated in 2000. It is clear that Setterfield and VR and I all made mistakes; so did Einstein in early formulations of his controversial theory, which allowed Hilbert to beat him to some crucial equations. But I stated succinctly every value which is varying with c, and logically followed those values through the argument (with corrections below). It was hard for me to model too, but I didn't let that stop me. It is just as falsifiable as anything else.
In this paper's model, lightspeed c (usually) decreases as some function of time, its frequency f decreases with c, other particle velocities v decrease with c, Planck's "constant" h increases inverse to c, the zero-point energy density U increases inverse to c, atomic rest mass m increases inverse to c^2, gravitational "constant" G decreases with c^2, permittivity epsilon and permeability mu increase inverse to c, opacity kappa decreases with c^2, and other minor values are similarly proportional.. I think that's everybody. These are continuous functions, but also lead to quantum changes in atomic structure. Certainly that's a lot to digest at once (and give them credit: even more so to discover all at once), but these are all fair effects of c variability. Setterfield reports that Mermin and Singh deduced relativity via Lorentz transformation completely independent of variability in c, so Einstein remains intact. Now, heeding VadeRetro's call to please use extreme caution:
1) Sunlight: First VR correctly observes that over time, the energy of a photon is conserved (except at quantum leaps, which can be ignored here): The per-photon energy changes are a wash. Then VR correctly observes that in the past, the total energy from all photons should have been much lower: The energy of each photon has to go a lot lower or Adam is in trouble. Here I must admit being mistaken about the cancellation coming from lower individual photon energy in the past, because I confused the present low value of old photon energy with its past high value, which does appear identical to the present high value of new photon energy. An old photon would have much less energy now, but be emitted much more often, than a new photon, but in both cases the energy is conserved. That means the photons observed now from the remote edge of the universe have much less energy than the photons from our sun now. However, the cancellation must come from the totality of photons if it exists, rather than from individual photons.
VR's solution is: To lower the energy of a photon, you have to lower its frequency. The inverse way of looking at that is to say you have to increase its wavelength. This seems mistaken, because frequency is in s^-1 and wavelength is in m, so they are not inverse with c variable. Frequency varies with c and lowers the energy appropriately, but wavelength is not changed; that is, light moving slower with the same wavelength will have fewer pulses per second. Thus photon energy as measured now is appropriately lower in the past, inverse to c rising. But if photon energy in the past was the same at emission as it is now, VR's objection is not yet answered.
Setterfield's solution to this objection in 6.2 is to calculate the overall luminosity of the star to see if it is truly greater with c or if factors cancel. Using Chandrasekhar's and Schwarzschild's different luminosity formulae (equations 72 and 74), he finds that assuming a constant nuclear reaction rate, luminosity varies both with c and inverse to kappa (opacity), which varies with c^2. But the nuclear reaction rate itself also varies with c. Thus (c/c^2)c cancels in both cases and luminosity is conserved.
However, a narrative explanation of why opacity should vary with c^2 would be desired to accompany the mathematical demonstration. It turns out the atomic rest mass being much lower, varying inverse to c^2, implies equally low density, which is a factor in greater opacity. That is, the decrease in density lowers the luminous energy by two factors, which are cancelled by the increase in lightspeed and the increase in total photon output. This cancellation, with the resultant only mildly redshifted sunlight, proves that conserved energy flux is the result of both independent accepted luminosity formulae. If section 6.2 in the link does not answer this question, further explanation can be found.
Wavelength, however, varies for another reason and causes the mild redshift: c rising causes quantum shifts in atomic orbital states which output longer waves. Observers had interpreted these as Hubble redshifts. VR is quite correct that: We appear to need a factor of something like 11 million; we have a factor of two.
Setterfield's explanation of this runs through the paper. To put it in one sentence, if you calculate backwards from Setterfield's resultant redshift z=~1.5, multiply by the quantum delta-c of 63.74 c-now (equation 119), and multiply by the Rydberg quantum number 1152pi^4 (equation 86), you get the range of 11 million c-now. (C-now means 3x10^8 m/s.) At this point, I can freely admit these explanations are new to me and healthy doubt is still in play. Anyone can play math and write 100 equations until they get the right set of numbers, and I empathize with those who accuse Setterfield of such. But this is not like someone who sees feng shui everywhere. Absent better explanation, I see no reason to doubt that he invokes these multipliers in good faith. The Rydberg number he derives from considerations of zero-point energy crossing at the quantum jumps; and the delta-c, of which c is an integral multiple at quantum jumps, is calculated from observation.of where the redshifts are quantized.
Alternate explanations are welcome, but the benefit of doubt would accord Setterfield the victory of retaining both an equal amount of light energy (luminosity) with 10^7 times the protons, and a redshift in wavelength of only the observed values of 0-14. (Incidentally, since 1.5 redshift equates to 10^7 increase in c, the 14 redshift corresponds to a maximal c increase of only 10^8 at the big bang, which Setterfield places plausibly at 8000 years ago and makes bigger than even evolutionists think.) The sun's output is quite sufficient to retain plenty of visible light, redshifted, even if today's visible light all became infrared. The output gain is consistent with the dampening loss due to opacity, and Setterfield's "proportionately more photons" harmonizes with Fryman's "amount of light is not increased".
2) Observed time: Here VR briefly seems to raise more of a personal than a scientific concern: Yet here's Adam living and aging like a live-fast-die-young bacterium. I don't follow the speculative chain. We agree that nucleons and electrons are sped up by factor of 10^7, but I can't make it follow that Everything electrical or chemical is speeded up with c or that aging will "fly". I don't know whether weaker chemical bonds are a valid answer, they may be a mistake of Fryman; but it seems like VR should expand on why these effects are so certain. Electrons are "flying" at incredible speed around nuclei now without doing any damage.
3) Alpha particles: In relation to reactions, after repeating a reference to the wavelength issue addressed above, VR admits, a bit impressed: Because of the speeds involved, however--and the careful design of this theory--the reactions happen faster so the energy flux is the same. (Ta-dah!) If the only objection is the neatness, we can probably pass that item. Atomic rest mass being tremendously less does not affect most reactions, including weight, because all the masses retain the same relative values. Atoms with mass reduced (with c^2) are propelled more often (with c) and at greater speed (with c), resulting in identical energy flux: good math does have a way of looking carefully designed.
After weighing factors, VR agrees the decay products should also fly faster when the nucleus breaks down, which is to say that particle velocity v varies with c. This appears a concern because although particles are sped up, planets are not. As to where to draw the line, this is the presently unanswered physics question of reconciling gravity and nuclear force. It appears the line is legitimate, because planets still accelerate according to Gm, regarded as a true constant, even if their particles are internally moving much faster than now.
Since v increases with c, VR sees loads of more particles multiplied by loads of more velocity: radiation energy increasing with c^2. He then cancels the lost mass of the particles against the lost mass of the permeated medium and retains energy increase with c^2. However, Setterfield explains the correct additional cancellation factors are the retarded absorption rates due to the increased particle velocity, and the increased velocity of the permeated materials (which produces the same decay result independent of c); that is, energy flux remains constant as it does with sunlight but in a different way.
4) Zero-point energy: ZPE effects, which I can freely admit not really understanding, are questioned in an aside. VR seems concerned that the "missing mass" violates conservation, but this is easily accounted by VR's own analysis and quote that more energy is being fed into the universe from the vacuum. Movement of energy from the vacuum to increased mass conserves it. After debunking ZPE junk science, VR concludes with the comparison that VSL also requires belief in "crazy hoops", "ugly and overly complex". Well, maybe.
For me, substantial changes, as Roemer's finite lightspeed or Einstein's relative time required physicists to make over decades, are certainly justified by vastly improved predictive models. For me, a chain of assumptions, when consistent with each other, are worth pursuing if the resultant is ultimately simpler. VSL stated simply is letting all atomic-time-related constants vary proportionally. When considered, it answers many nagging physics questions: first, the statistically significant variation in observed measurements of these constants; then, resolution between old clocks (particularly radiometric dating) and young clocks; resolution between historical perception of youth and modern skepticism; quantized redshifts; the rapid homogenization during the forming of CMB; speed of gravity questions; conflict between Tolman surface brightness and Zwicky surface brightness (Setterfield seems to like that one); and resolution of the hypothetical "dark matter" or "dark energy" necessary to maintain gravitation in the uniformitarian model. To perform one more cancellation, the simplicity benefits outweigh the complex difficulties. RadioAstronomer was linking mirror matter and stranger things to explain the Pioneer anomalies, but VSL is simpler and clearer than all of them: the acceleration decreased because lightspeed, the measurement tool, did also. Wouldn't you prefer to answer these haunting questions, rather than go on fighting because it might imply a scary reponsibility to a personal God?
Thanks for your patience, this was written for me as much as for anyone. VadeRetro, I have high hopes, please let me know what you think. The real question for each of us is: what evidence would and would not change our cherished beliefs? I have a single absolute commitment to God as he reveals himself and to no one else. I seek to subject any belief whatsoever to God's final judgment rather than retain it as immutable in itself. No theory is ultimate except the axioms. This is the scientific method, and God is the best Axiom.
I've only read the section on light so far to any degree beyond a glimpse. He concludes that stellar luminosities are unaffected. Now if I could just decode how he got that ...
He seems to think increasing stellar opacities helps him in some way. I think all the energy being released inside the star has to get out if it is in equilibrium. You can heat up an opaque cloud for a while, but it starts to glow and you reach equilibrium. (This comes up in discussions of the Olber's Paradox.) However, as I say, I haven't given it a study yet.
As I was starting to guess already, he's canceling luminosity with opacity. I don't really believe that works. Opacity can't permanently eat the energy. Maybe he's using opacity to turn--I don't know, 1000? 100?, 11,000,000?--infrared photons into one optical photon, but I doubt even that works. If nuclear reactions emit redder photons, why don't hot gasses?
I get into this and all I can do is shake my head over the hoops religious zealots will try to jump us all through so they don't have to admit difficulties.
I was indeed impressed, but it was not in as good a way as you seem to think.
homo erectus.....
think about it........
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.