The History Books Were Wrong

[AlohaJoe]

I always feel a little smug satisfaction when I read articles that seem to throw current scientific theories out the door. I like to remind my kids that whether it's geological, evolutionary, dinosaurs, Big Bang, String or whatever, it's still theory and not necessarily fact.

:shock: I think dinosaurs would fall more on the 'fact' side since we found their bones.

 

[Ravon]

I always feel a little smug satisfaction when I read articles that seem to throw current scientific theories out the door. I like to remind my kids that whether it's geological, evolutionary, dinosaurs, Big Bang, String or whatever, it's still theory and not necessarily fact.

:shock: I think dinosaurs would fall more on the 'fact' side since we found their bones.

Yeah we know there were dinosaurs but when I was taught about them they were all neatly catagorized as being reptiles. Now, not so sure about that.

 

[Ravon]

Double Post

 

[fronobulax]

Fascinating. Thanks.

When I used the word "infrastructure" in reference to trade, I was thinking of the following: I need to know what I can transport and what I can receive in turn. I don't want to take coal to Newcastle. I need to know how to get there and back again since a one way trip is not necessarily of interest, nor is a failure to survive the trip. Perhaps "infrastructure" is standing in for repeatability and familiarity?

For example,

I don't consider it too surprising if a North American Native with a dugout full of tobacco got blown out to sea and the dugout (with or without a live passenger) arrived in Africa where a native there tried to burn the leaves and enjoyed it. Having the N. A. native survive the trip is less likely but possible. Having the survivor somehow make it home is even less likely but once it happens, there will be a whole bunch of folks willing to make the trip again. After a while knowledge about how to make the trip safely and repeatably gets accumulated and we have regular trade. So that is what I was thinking of and I called it out since I think sea journeys are much more difficult than land ones at presumed levels of low/no technology. For example, because of the Bearing Strait, I would not be at all surprised to find evidence of interaction between the Chinese and the North Americans long before people think it first happened.

Anyway, very interesting.

 

[adorshki]

I need to know how to get there and back again since a one way trip is not necessarily of interest, nor is a failure to survive the trip. Perhaps "infrastructure" is standing in for repeatability and familiarity?

That's why they're called "trade routes", like the famous Silk Road, and why prevailing wiinds in various regions of sea trade are called "trade winds". In fact sea trade in may ways was quicker and safer than land trade. According tio Marco polo, the Chinese had extensive sea trade routes all over what are now known as the East Indies and even out to Madagascar. And it's pretty obvious that the only way the southeast Pacific Islands got populated all the way out to Micronesia at all was by fearless seafaring explorers with some pretty extraordinary knowledge of celestial navigation, for "primitive cultures". From there it's not that much farther to Chile.
In counterpoint, as you say, from northern China, it might have been easier to "follow the coastline" all the way around the northern Pacific rim and then back down the coast of Alaska, even when the Bering landbridge was submerged. When you're in the Aleutians you can pretty much see the next island in line if it's not fogged over.

I don't consider it too surprising if a North American Native with a dugout full of tobacco got blown out to sea and the dugout (with or without a live passenger) arrived in Africa where a native there tried to burn the leaves and enjoyed it.

Actually I don't think the prevailing currents wouldn't facilitate that, from North America, they tend to travel up from the Carribean, north towards Greenland and then across and south again along the european coast. Why the rum trade went from Africa to the Carribees and then to the early colonies.

So that is what I was thinking of and I called it out since I think sea journeys are much more difficult than land ones at presumed levels of low/no technology. For example, because of the Bearing Strait, I would not be at all surprised to find evidence of interaction between the Chinese and the North Americans long before people think it first happened.

At "low" technology levels that may well be true, or it may just depend on how bad the population pressure and threat from "land based" competition (like bandits) is, compared to the risk of going to sea with a pre-packaged food supply in search of new territory. Also very early sea travel was pretty much based on following the coastline, so in some ways it was safer than traveling on land where ambush is more easily accomplished.
As for evidence of contact between Chinese and North America, here's some extremely compelling evidence:
http://www.gavinmenzies.net/Evidence/26 ... nd-belize/
8)

 

[AlohaJoe]

I always feel a little smug satisfaction when I read articles that seem to throw current scientific theories out the door. I like to remind my kids that whether it's geological, evolutionary, dinosaurs, Big Bang, String or whatever, it's still theory and not necessarily fact.

:shock: I think dinosaurs would fall more on the 'fact' side since we found their bones.

Yeah we know there were dinosaurs but when I was taught about them they were all neatly catagorized as being reptiles. Now, not so sure about that.

True. Sorry if I misread your intent. Fortunately for all of us science marches on, adding to the knowledge base by building on what we know (or think we know) today. Anyway, constantly testing theories and correcting course beats crystal balls and tea leaves so I see scientific corrections more as progress than as evidence of previous errors.

 

[Ravon]

Yeah we know there were dinosaurs but when I was taught about them they were all neatly catagorized as being reptiles. Now, not so sure about that.[/quote]True. Sorry if I misread your intent. Fortunately for all of us science marches on, adding to the knowledge base by building on what we know (or think we know) today. Anyway, constantly testing theories and correcting course beats crystal balls and tea leaves so I see scientific corrections more as progress than as evidence of previous errors.[/quote]
Joe, as you can tell I rely heavily on people being mind readers :lol:. No disdain for science here. More a disdain about attitude I guess.

 

[West R Lee]

I still want someone to tell me where the stars end? :wink:

West

 

[Ravon]

I still want someone to tell me where the stars end? :wink:

West

What little I know in studying amateur astronomy West, is that the universe (with good compelling evidence called The Hubble constant http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 101719.htm) is expanding and accelerating as well. So in answer to your question there is no fixed point. So from that evidence (and more) one can also deduce that the Big Bang Theory is our best guess on the beginning. Also, there's compelling evidence that something can be made from nothing http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang ... r_noth.php

 

[southernGuild]

8) Ahhh yes, Where do the stars end? and if expanding, .....expanding into "what'.
Enough to make your ponderer sore. :lol:
Still, good to ponder.
I certainly have more questions than answers. :wink:

 

[West R Lee]

I still want someone to tell me where the stars end? :wink:

West

What little I know in studying amateur astronomy West, is that the universe (with good compelling evidence called The Hubble constant http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 101719.htm) is expanding and accelerating as well. So in answer to your question there is no fixed point. So from that evidence (and more) one can also deduce that the Big Bang Theory is our best guess on the beginning. Also, there's compelling evidence that something can be made from nothing http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang ... r_noth.php

Actually Rave......I'm a proponent of a different theory (belief). Merely pointing out that there are things that science (men) can't explain.......the end of the universe being one of them. :wink:

West