Thread Rating:
  • 2 Vote(s) - 1.5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Ancient Civilisation on Mars my discoveries
Holy shit reading that was like riding a roller coaster!

I deeply appreciate the efforts of Vic, and Clay as well.
informative as hell AND entertaining!
but it boils down to this
it's tetrahedral, and lines up precisely with all the other stuff..
so now the Face can take its place with the D&M, the rest of Cydonia, Giza, and probably every place on earth like them,
and you can PROVE IT. No longer an enigma that simply looks like a face and fits only a place marker on the overall geometry.

outstanding.
On a satellite I ride. Nothing down below can hide.
Reply
It is thrilling Keith.
I am glad to participate.
Thank you for the place to discuss this and your Image Examples me and V are hi-jacking(For non-nefarious purposes. of course.)

As you intoned  when you Zoom in or pan out by the various craft.
Cross-referencing them all and correcting the NASA skew is no easy task and takes great mental effort.
Planet Wide Doh (dichotomy Line non-withstanding clause)


[Image: 27925754478_2fc6cb2241_o.jpg]

Decimal numeric sets is as degrees was.


These numbers seem to be jungian.
To a collective degree.
[Image: sagitta_chord_arc.gif]
Not going off of a tangent t may strike a chord

[Image: chord_circle_index_17.jpg]
Along the vines of the Vineyard.
With a forked tongue the snake singsss...
Reply
...
EA says

Quote:This is where we separate ways...
Your Eastern Vertical is in what I call a vast grey area 
and too far east when viewed in grey-scale like Keith's image.  Nonono

You need to go west more than you allow.  Nonono
I will demonstrate in a future post(Besides the fact that it still won't jibe with MRO.  Whip



No, we have the exact same position on the west side.
So,
if I go further west -- on the east side, then the -- 1950 meter width -- can never be accommodated <---

I measured your central angle B, and others,
in your last Face image lines,
and with your line placements, and you have between a central 67-68 degree angle B <---
and the angle along both sides of angle B that are supposed to be 109.47122063,
you have 112-113  degrees.
Your lines are off,
and in no way conform to the posted dimensions.
Your lines appear more to be a feeble attempt to reinstall a 33.3 degree angle.
You can also try to just print out your last image,
and simply measure the angles with a plastic compass protractor.
It will be close enough to show you that your angles are off considerably.
Your lines produce a width of around 1850 meters,
when applying the angles you produced.

And all that is irrelevant now with the meter measures supplied by Keith.
I will not debate this with you.
I disagree with your line placements and they do not measure up with proper angles.
You can post all the images you want to attempt to justify those line placements,
and I will pay no attention at this point. 
If my lines,
at the top and bottom are too snugged in like you claim,
then all I have to do is place them a pinch further out -- top and bottom --
and REUSE
my original east line <---
and it will remain tetrahedral.
enough is enough


For me, by looking again at this from a tetrahedral perspective,
I found the Earth year in angle tangent equations --- 
I have seen this Earth year value in other angle tangent applications,
and was quite surprised to see it emerge again here.
That sidereal Earth year:
365.2564103 days
365.25636 --- 21st century exact data  --- 4.34 second differential

That new Earth year value is more prevalent in angle tangents than I first suspected.
I am blown away that I missed it for ten years prior.
It was right there the whole time right in front of all our eyes.

I found it two years ago working the Khufu Pyramid slope tangent,
forgot to write it down then,
and then forgot how I got there. 
Just 3 weeks ago,
I accidentally blundered back into it in other applications.
Now,
it shows up here again.
This info on that Earth sidereal year data has to go to the Pyramid thread.
But I will show you how I found it again,
without spelling out the exact tangent {back pocket for now}

1. Set up the tetrahedral angle A = 54.73561032 degrees on The Face. 

2. take angle B = 70.52877937 degrees 
and reorient it in the isosceles triangle seen placed for reference in the upper left side of the image.
This produces angle V
which is 2 x 19.47122063 degrees  --- with tangent defined.

3. So you get TWO triangles as angles --- BVB <---> situated as seen.

4.From the bottom arms of that triangle,
the:
Khafre Pyramid corner angle -- triangle -- geometry is then placed,
by using the original tetrahedral mounds placements -- PD -- that define -- Khafre Pyramid Corner Angle.
That angle is shown in the upper right.

5. angle Z -- has the ancient Earth Venus synod cycle fraction {365 / 584} = {5 / 8} in the tangent <---
This fraction initiates the fibonacci ancient phi progressions.
the tangent:
{365 / {584 x sqrt 2}
right out of the Cydonia Hexad geometries when line PD is drawn between those two mounds.
{see the pyramid thread on Khafre Pyramid and the Cydonia Hexad}

6. Angle X is defined on the diagram.

7. Angle K1  plus angle y  =  74.20683095  ---> tangent = 10 tangent 19.47122063  <----

8. Angle K2  plus  angle z  =  70.52877937 degrees = angle B

9. Angle w = 30.89297429  degrees   ----  angle y  = 59.10702571 degrees.
This is the frist time I have seen these angles appear within the tetrahedral geometries. <---
They are generated by the Khafre Pyramid Corner Angles,
using angle B -- lower arm -- as displayed,
and as situated in the original tetrahedral template with angle A.
These are the two angles,
that will display the Earth sidereal year -- in the tangents <--- in an equation,
with the tetrahedral geometry sidereal year,
evidenced at:
0.9999999~  accuracy -- off by 4.34 seconds from 21st century data Earth sidereal.
That is superb accuracy -- about 12 times the accuracy of 6 sigma <---
And that Earth sidereal year value has unusually eye opening surprises,
try
Mayan astronomical count glyph 819   Hi   for an interesting result.

It aligns four primes 3, 11, 13 and ---> 37.

[Image: ShlzpkZ.jpg]
...
Reply
(04-30-2018, 01:55 PM)Vianova Wrote: No, we have the exact same position on the west side.
So,
if I go further west -- on the east side, then the -- 1950 meter width -- can never be accommodated <---

your east vertical is a snow job. I don't agree with it.

And all that is irrelevant now with the meter measures supplied by Keith.
Was that measured from Google Earth???

I will not debate this with you.
If it was...
[Image: 8180952077_76b6ab538f_b.jpg]
...then it ain't gonna jibe

Quote:hmm,

now that I'm re-looking at it- the face is indeed oriented 33.3 degrees from north.
the closest estimate I can give on the face's area
while accounting for non crisp borderlines on an ancient structure is
2750x1950m and that's with a fudge factor of ~15 m

I disagree with your line placements and they do not measure up with proper angles.
I disagree with 3 out of 4 of yours as an MRO image and the 4th doesn't jibe anyway with ESA.

You can post all the images you want to attempt to justify those line placements,
and I will pay no attention at this point. 
That sounds like a skipped record ~33.3 rpm...
If my lines,
at the top and bottom are too snugged in like you claim,
then all I have to do is place them a pinch further out -- top and bottom --
and REUSE
my original east line <---
and it will remain tetrahedral.
East is Dawn with your line drawn in the "Pasted on" in the wrong place.(on non-esa)

enough is enough

Jibe/Jive

Quote: And all that is irrelevant now with the meter measures supplied by Keith.


Holy Cubits!?!?!?  Holycowsmile Meters... when did you become a convert and start accepting Metric Units???  LilD


It also occurred to me we should re-look at the Pentad mounds now that we know about the pasted on ~snow.

Neve never occurred to you.

All things considered , it will be factored in like it or not.
Along the vines of the Vineyard.
With a forked tongue the snake singsss...
Reply
...
EA if you don't like the tetrahedral geometry Mars Face,
or my rectangles that show a tetrahedral formation,
then you can address Keith about the dimensions he posted <---
His dimensional count of meters is probably better than anyone's.

The math for the tetrahedral angle tangents from Keith's count in meters is undisputable,
regardless of whether you don't like my rectangle lines,
or if I don't like yours. 
Our rectangles as they sit may be both placed wrongly.
When I measure your last rectangle as you designed it, .. it is not even close to tetrahedral.
So you have a different meter count Whip
for your rectangle,
obviously. 

I was close at my choice of 54 degrees. 
My original assessment was between 53 and 55 degrees for angle A.
I feel that I was close enough with my overall analysis,
with the flag going to tetrahedral 54.73561032 degrees.



On the issue of the Pentad and Hexad,
any argument you have is with Dr. Horace Crater, not me.
My tetrahedral math on tetrahedral hexads and pentads is on the money.
 
I did not make all the measures and calculations to statistically verify the positions of the mounds, 
as they sit on Mars in all the NASA and ESA images.
That would be Crater and McDaniel at UTSI.
Dr. Crater went to great lengths to defend that premise of the mounds positions.

I have consistently Hi  stated,
that regardless of whether or not the Mounds are artificial,
or 100% in place tetrahedrally as well, as they sit on Mars,
all that is irrelevant to the tetrahedral work that I presented.
I used true tetrahedral square root two rectangle developed hexads and pentads,
and kept the geometry pure and directly tangible to being realistic and scrutinized. 

If you feel that the Mounds don't measure up to the tetrahedral positions,
due to what you perceive are defects in many Mars images,
you would have to argue against all the defenses Dr. Crater made on their positions.
I think he addressed some of those issues.
I think that McDaniel is still alive to argue that with as well.

Otherwise, if the Face did have tetrahedral geometry intent,
as is evidenced by the dimensions in meters,
it still has the "electron spin angle" as it's central angle.
Regardless of the Mounds.

Even if the Cydonia Mounds are disproven or invalidly interpreted,
position wise by Crater and McDaniel,
that does not affect my tetrahedral work with hexads and pentads into the Khafre Pyramid,
or the ancient pyramid cosmology found in the angle tangents,
such as the {2 x 19.47122063} degree apex angle,
in the isosceles triangle with the "electron spin" angles as the base angles.

It does not bother me if the Mounds are not artificial or if they are disproven somehow.
My work is solely to do this:
The Grand Unification of Ancient and Modern Geometry and Mathematics.
That is what I do.
It goes far beyond Mars and the Face.

I never wanted to do this Mars Face work.
You pushed me into this mess.
Why do you think that I never did the Mars Face before this?
Too many people with too many versions of the famous Face.
Like Barnsy and his Cydonia City Grid of image artifacts and Leon Sphynx in Phelgra Montes.
Because when I do the study, the scrutiny and geometry math, 
on specialties like The Face,
shit happens,
and inevitably a lot of peoples work gets cleaned up in a lot of other areas related to the subject.
With all the evidence presented here,
I ... believe ... that we chose the best statistical geometry for the Face.

I suggested a 33.3332233 degree angle for the City Grid from an angle tangent analysis,
as an alternative, instead of Carlotto's basic 33.3 degrees,
and you disagreed with both of us,
and punctuated that specifically as --- 33.34 degrees from your own Mars Face design.
So I don't see much flex in your positions through the whole affair.


...
Reply
...
EA if you don't like the tetrahedral geometry Mars Face,
or my rectangles that show a tetrahedral formation,

Excellent presentation,beyond well reasoned.
The standalone penta-hexad is ultimate.
I just think the Ortho doesn't work like ESA...Or they would be in PERFECT register and we wouldn't have a dichotomy.

then you can address Keith about the dimensions he posted <---
His dimensional count of meters is probably better than anyone's.

Of this I have no doubt,all I asked was: Did he get those lengths from google mars.

Simple enough to inquire...

Question: Keith how did you arrive at the measure discussed?


The math for the tetrahedral angle tangents from Keith's count in meters is undisputable,
regardless of whether you don't like my rectangle lines,
or if I don't like yours.

Actually your stand-alone Non Areocentric  work is not in dispute.
I am not disputing Keith either, just a simple inquiry of source for measure.

Our rectangles as they sit may be both placed wrongly.

All things considered.

When I measure your last rectangle as you designed it, .. it is not even close to tetrahedral.

-I said it was tetrahedral??? Doh
I thought I said all that Jibe/Jive
Conversely, is it cubic?

All things considered.

[Image: 2259695600_ccb2253e7c_o.gif]


[Image: 2259695560_c883ee0e8b_o.gif]





If Cubic...are all the measures that are 19.5 the same?or is it not even close to tetrahedral.
Even 2750x1950m is the same difference If Cubic Tetrahedral.
 
So you have a different meter count
for your rectangle,
obviously.

By inference,nothing exact of course.

I was close at my choice of 54 degrees.
My original assessment was between 53 and 55 degrees for angle A.
I feel that I was close enough with my overall analysis,
with the flag going to tetrahedral 54.73561032 degrees.

That's what was fairly demonstrated on the MRO image.

On the issue of the Pentad and Hexad,
any argument you have is with Dr. Horace Crater, not me.
My tetrahedral math on tetrahedral hexads and pentads is on the money.

Your Stand-alone tetrahedral math on tetrahedral hexads and pentads is on the money.
any argument you have is with Dr.Mark J. Carlotto , not me.
On the issue of the Pentad and Hexad, MJC included them in his study...They are part of the ~33.3 he averaged out for all the anomalies we're discussing.
 
I did not make all the measures and calculations to statistically verify the positions of the mounds,
as they sit on Mars in all the NASA and ESA images.
That would be Crater and McDaniel at UTSI.
Dr. Crater went to great lengths to defend that premise of the mounds positions.

Again,Carlotto factored that all into his jive.
If their placements and orient update to hold true...conversely MJC's would too, IMO.
He's still alive and you could take the issue up with him as well.
Being the original Meta-study that was mound inclusive.
Recall: they're all neve niave as well IMO.

I have consistently stated,
that regardless of whether or not the Mounds are artificial,
or 100% in place tetrahedrally as well, as they sit on Mars,
all that is irrelevant to the tetrahedral work that I presented.

I  3 x 33.3333333333333333333................................... agree with that.

I used true tetrahedral square root two rectangle developed hexads and pentads,
and kept the geometry pure and directly tangible to being realistic and scrutinized.

If you feel that the Mounds don't measure up to the tetrahedral positions,
due to what you perceive are defects in many Mars images,
you would have to argue against all the defenses Dr. Crater made on their positions.
I think he addressed some of those issues.
I think that McDaniel is still alive to argue that with as well.

I never went there much really.
We should go there though, in the future, to double check these mounds for Neve as we progress,besides the defects in many mars renditions ...all things considered.
I have a feeling neve can re-set boundaries now that we are aware of cut-and pasted on material.Especially on the Northern Eastern side of the Huge D&M
WE should check thesee small albedo points in Hi-REz


Otherwise, if the Face did have tetrahedral geometry intent,
as is evidenced by the dimensions in meters,
it still has the "electron spin angle" as it's central angle.
Regardless of the Mounds.

If you believe MRO is the best choice for such geometry.
It wouldn't hurt if you Tried the ESA version.
I believe MEX is higher quality in the Face's trued morphology even tho' lower res.
I think Mars Themis Visible almost gets it right but not quite.

Even if the Cydonia Mounds are disproven or invalidly interpreted,
position wise by Crater and McDaniel,
that does not affect my tetrahedral work with hexads and pentads into the Khafre Pyramid,
or the ancient pyramid cosmology found in the angle tangents,
such as the {2 x 19.47122063} degree apex angle,
in the isosceles triangle with the "electron spin" angles as the base angles.

-not one tiny bit of an affect effect.

It does not bother me if the Mounds are not artificial or if they are disproven somehow.
My work is solely to do this:
The Grand Unification of Ancient and Modern Geometry and Mathematics.
That is what I do.
It goes far beyond Mars and the Face.

It Rocks. LilD

I never wanted to do this Mars Face work.
You pushed me into this mess.
Why do you think that I never did the Mars Face before this?
Too many people with too many versions of the famous Face.
Like Barnsy and his Cydonia City Grid of image artifacts and Leon Sphynx in Phelgra Montes.
Because when I do the study, the scrutiny and geometry math,
on specialties like The Face,
shit happens,
and inevitably a lot of peoples work gets cleaned up in a lot of other areas related to the subject.
With all the evidence presented here,
I ... believe ... that we chose the best statistical geometry for the Face.

- I wonder if you would believe new things once you try the ESA Images.
Google should give you the "Option" to SELECT the mro image instead of just slopping it on top,destroying measurable context.
Did you know you can "REgister the ESA FOM perfectly in google earth back over top Hirise like a jig-saw puzzle piece and Cover-Up the Misaligned MRO monstrosity.
The Face would return to itz original and proper context and replace that bug eyed stretched out MRO image.The ESA eye looks the most REAL.
There is an ADD IMAGE OVerlay feature in the TOOLS of google mars.
Cut and paste enough area from any ESA Face image with enough ground around it to occult the MRO product,
thereby reconstituting the missing ESA face Bamf/Noel Gorelick most likely slopped overtop of ESA.
Simply select the slider bar away from 'opaque' and register it back into itz jig-saw peice place on the plains...then click SAVE when you succeed.
The full context of these anomalies we discuss then is restored.In the compass sidebars you need North squared up and the cydonian plain also squared up to Nadir.
It takes a lot of eye-ball effort but by toggling your finished overlay by saving it to the sidebar on and off you'll now if you have perfect register.
If you don't re-open it and tweak it til itz perfectly in register.

I suggested a 33.3332233 degree angle for the City Grid from an angle tangent analysis,
as an alternative, instead of Carlotto's basic 33.3 degrees,
and you disagreed with both of us,
and punctuated that specifically as --- 33.34 degrees from your own Mars Face design.
So I don't see much flex in your positions through the whole affair.

You never neve even...Same difference.
As always exellent analysis results when we delve into a subject and this has been an awesome thread!(I just thought Mform would be here too?)
I like everything you've presented and if I intoned i don't Like anything,besides the most obvious as east vertical you chose generally I speak of MRO vs MEX product.
What I posited doesn't mean I don't continue to consider possibilities...as you say 33.3332233 degree angle for the City Grid can you demonstrate that on the ESA image?
That'd be cool!
Along the vines of the Vineyard.
With a forked tongue the snake singsss...
Reply
Elon Musk has his OWN orbiter on its way.  Since he intends to land his BFR's AT the Cydonia Latitude; he knows WHERE he's building HIS 'City' whether NASA/JPL like it or not.  Look at the special releases and ALL his acquisitions are AT the 39 degree latitude.

I am SURE once his OWN cameras in orbit that we will get HONEST answers as to ALL of the Cydonia areas making Nasal and Esa eat crow.

Bob... Ninja Assimilated
"The Light" - Jefferson Starship-Windows of Heaven Album
I'm an Earthling with a Martian Soul wanting to go Home.   
You have to turn your own lightbulb on. ©stevo25 & rhw007
Reply
[Image: mounde360.gif]

Mound E by Carlotto.

That ain't no Albedo Point. More like Points

What the hell is that actually??? Holycowsmile

Itz buried but you can still see a large diffuse outline around the points protruding.
It would be fascinating to excavate that site.
Along the vines of the Vineyard.
With a forked tongue the snake singsss...
Reply
...
Magnify to 300%,
print screen it,
right when the perfectly overhead scene rotates into place.
This gives a good birds eye view from directly overhead to make a still image out of.

Once the image is an image file, open it up, and play with it in 90 degree rotations.
Looks like a collapsed structure to me.
And more,
but collapsed structure suffices.
...

...
I went ahead and chose this perspective from the top view rotations

[Image: vANvIKm.jpg]

...
Reply
Arrow  Holycowsmile Sheep   LilD  
[Image: 41708211002_19b1c6999d_z.jpg]

https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/fa...sfact.html

Jibe Posit-bility Jive

The Mars Earth Ratio just got ANU update.
This lends leeway to plausibility and possibility


Quote:EA:
What I posited doesn't mean I don't continue to consider possibilities...as you say 33.3332233 degree angle for the City Grid can you demonstrate that on the ESA image?
That'd be cool!

Scientists have for decades posited  that Earth's orbit around the sun goes from nearly circular to about 5 percent elliptical, and back again every 405,000 years. The shift is believed to result from a complex interplay with the gravitational influences of Venus and Jupiter, along with other bodies in the Solar System as they all whirl around the Sun like a set of gyrating hula-hoops, sometimes closer to one another, sometimes further. Astrophysicists believe the mathematical calculation of the cycle is reliable back to around 50 million years, but after that, the problem gets too complex, because too many shifting motions are at play.



Earth's orbital changes have influenced climate, life forms for at least 215 million years
May 7, 2018, Columbia University


[Image: inancientroc.jpg]
Within ancient rocks in Arizona's Petrified Forest National Park, scientists have identified signs of a regular variation in Earth's orbit that influences climate. Here, one of the authors near the research site. Credit: Kevin Krajick/Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory
Scientists drilling deep into ancient rocks in the Arizona desert say they have documented a gradual shift in Earth's orbit that repeats regularly every 405,000 years, playing a role in natural climate swings. Astrophysicists have long hypothesized that the cycle exists based on calculations of celestial mechanics, but the authors of the new research have found the first verifiable physical evidence. They showed that the cycle has been stable for hundreds of millions of years, from before the rise of dinosaurs, and is still active today. The research may have implications not only for climate studies, but our understanding of the evolution of life on Earth, and the evolution of the Solar System. It appears this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.



Scientists have for decades posited that Earth's orbit around the sun goes from nearly circular to about 5 percent elliptical, and back again every 405,000 years. The shift is believed to result from a complex interplay with the gravitational influences of Venus and Jupiter, along with other bodies in the Solar System as they all whirl around the Sun like a set of gyrating hula-hoops, sometimes closer to one another, sometimes further. Astrophysicists believe the mathematical calculation of the cycle is reliable back to around 50 million years, but after that, the problem gets too complex, because too many shifting motions are at play.

"There are other, shorter, orbital cycles, but when you look into the past, it's very difficult to know which one you're dealing with at any one time, because they change over time," said lead author Dennis Kent, an expert in paleomagnetism at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory and Rutgers University. "The beauty of this one is that it stands alone. It doesn't change. All the other ones move over it."

The new evidence lies within 1,500-foot-long cores of rock that Kent and his coauthors drilled from a butte in Arizona's Petrified Forest National Park in 2013, plus earlier deep cores from suburban New York and New Jersey. The Arizona rocks in the study formed during the late Triassic, between 209 million and 215 million years ago, when the area was covered with meandering rivers that laid down sediments. Around this time, early dinosaurs started evolving.

[Image: 1-inancientroc.jpg]
Coauthor John Geissman of the University of Texas, Dallas, pulls a drilled-out core of rock used in the study. The drilling penetrated more than 1,500 feet, going back some 250 million years. Credit: Kevin Krajick/Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory
The scientists nailed down the Arizona rocks' ages by analyzing interspersed volcanic ash layers containing radioisotopes that decay at a predictable rate. Within the sediments, they also detected repeated reversals in the polarity of the planet's magnetic field. The team then compared these findings to the New York-New Jersey cores, which penetrated old lakebeds and soils that hold exquisitely preserved signs of alternating wet and dry periods during what was believed to be the same time.

Kent and Olsen have long argued that the climate changes displayed in the New York-New Jersey rocks were controlled by the 405,000-year cycle. However, there are no volcanic ash layers there to provide precise dates. But those cores do contain polarity reversals similar to those spotted in Arizona. By combining the two sets of data, the team showed that both sites developed at the same time, and that the 405,000-year interval indeed exerts a kind of master control over climate swings. Paleontologist Paul Olsen, a coauthor of the study, said that the cycle does not directly change climate; rather it intensifies or dampens the effects of shorter-term cycles, which act more directly.

 

The planetary motions that spur climate swings are known as Milankovitch cycles, named for the Serbian mathematician who worked them out in the 1920s. Boiled down to simplest terms, they consist of a 100,000-year cycle in the eccentricity of Earth's orbit, similar to the big 405,000-year swing; a 41,000-year cycle in the tilt of Earth's axis relative to its orbit around the Sun; and a 21,000-year cycle caused by a wobble of the planet's axis. Together, these shifts change the proportions of solar energy reaching the Northern Hemisphere, where most of the planet's land is located, during different parts of the year. This in turn influences climate.

In the 1970s, scientists showed that that Milankovitch cycles have driven repeated warming and cooling of the planet, and thus the waxing and waning of ice ages over the last few million years. But they are still arguing over inconsistencies in data over that period, and the cycles' relationships to rising and falling levels of carbon dioxide, the other apparent master climate control. Understanding how this all worked in the more distant past is even harder. For one, the frequencies of the shorter cycles have almost certainly changed over time, but no one can say exactly by how much. For another, the cycles are all constantly proceeding against each other. Sometimes some are out of phase with others, and they tend to cancel each other out; at others, several may line up with each other to initiate sudden, drastic changes. Making the calculation of how they all might fit together gets harder the further back you go.

[Image: 2-inancientroc.jpg]
Sediments laid down in what is now Arizona more than 200 million years ago, before the rise of dinosaurs, were matched with similar earlier cores taken in New York and New Jersey. Here, a freshly pulled core. Credit: Kevin Krajick/Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory
Kent and Olsen say that every 405,000 years, when orbital eccentricity is at its peak, seasonal differences caused by shorter cycles will become more intense; summers are hotter and winters colder; dry times drier, wet times wetter. The opposite will be true 202,500 years later, when the orbit is at its most circular. During the late Triassic, for poorly understood reasons, the Earth was much warmer than it is now through many cycles, and there was little to no glaciation. Then, the 405,000-year cycle showed up in strongly alternating wet and dry periods. Precipitation peaked when the orbit was at its most eccentric, producing deep lakes that left layers of black shale in eastern North America. When the orbit was most circular, things dried up, leaving lighter layers of soil exposed to the air.

Jupiter and Venus exert such strong influences because of size and proximity. Venus is the nearest planet to us—at its farthest, only about 162 million miles—and roughly similar in mass. Jupiter is much farther away, but is the Solar System's largest planet, 2.5 times bigger than all others combined.

Linda Hinnov, a professor at George Mason University who studies the deep past, said the new study lends support to previous studies by others that claim to have observed signs of the 405,000-year cycle even further back, before 250 million years ago. Among other things, she said, it "could lead to new insights into early dinosaur evolution." She called the findings "a significant new contribution to geology, and to astronomy."

Kent and Olsen say that because of all the competing factors at work, there is still much to learn. "This is truly complicated stuff," said Olsen. "We are using basically the same kinds of math to send spaceships to Mars, and sure, that works. But once you start extending interplanetary motions back in time and tie that to cause and effect in climate, we can't claim that we understand how it all works." The metronomic beat of the 405,000-year cycle may eventually help researchers disentangle some of this, he said.

If you were wondering, the Earth is currently in the nearly circular part of the 405,000-year period. What does that mean for us? "Probably not anything very perceptible," says Kent. "It's pretty far down on the list of so many other things that can affect climate on times scales that matter to us." Kent points out that according to the Milankovitch theory, we should be at the peak of a 20,000-some year warming trend that ended the last glacial period; the Earth may eventually start cooling again over thousands of years, and possibly head for another glaciation. "Could happen. Guess we could wait around and see," said Kent. "On the other hand, all the CO2 we're pouring into the air right now is the obvious big enchilada. That's having an effect we can measure right now. The planetary cycle is a little more subtle."

Explore further: Earth's orbital variations and sea ice synch glacial periods

More information: Dennis V. Kent el al., "Empirical evidence for stability of the 405-kiloyear Jupiter–Venus eccentricity cycle over hundreds of millions of years," PNAS (2018). www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1800891115


Journal reference: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences [/url]
Provided by:
Columbia University


Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-05-ancient-sc...p.html#jCp



Study explains why Mars growth stunted

May 7, 2018, University of Oklahoma


[Image: mars.jpg]
Credit: NASA
A University of Oklahoma astrophysics team explains why the growth of Mars was stunted by an orbital instability among the outer solar system's giant planets in a new study on the evolution of the young solar system. The OU study builds on the widely-accepted Nice Model, which invokes a planetary instability to explain many peculiar observed aspects of the outer solar system. An OU model used computer simulations to show how planet accretion (growth) is halted by the outer solar system instability. Without it, Mars possibly could have become a larger, habitable planet like Earth.



"This study offers a simple and more elegant solution for why Mars is small, barren and uninhabitable," said Matthew S. Clement, OU graduate student in the Homer L. Dodge Department of Physics and Astronomy, OU College of Arts and Sciences. "The particular dynamics of the instability between the giant planets kept Mars from growing to an Earth-mass planet."

Clement and Nathan A. Kaib, OU astrophysics professor, worked with Sean N. Raymond, the University of Bordeaux, France, and Kevin J. Walsh, Southwest Research Institute, to investigate the effect of the Nice Model instability on the process of terrestrial planetary formation. The research team used computing resources provided by the OU Supercomputing Center for Education and Research and the Blue Waters sustained peta-scale computing project to perform 800 computer simulations of this scenario.

The goal of this study was to investigate simulated systems that produced Earth-like planets with Mars analogs as well. Recent geological data from Mars and Earth indicates that Mars' formation period was about 10 times shorter than Earth's, which has led to the idea that Mars was left behind as a 'stranded planetary embryo' during the formation of the Sun's inner planets. The early planet instability modeled in this study provides a natural explanation for how Mars emerged from the process of planet formation as a 'stranded embryo.'

The success of the terrestrial planetary formation simulations for this study were found to be tied to the detailed evolution of the solar system's two giant planets—Jupiter and Saturn. Systems in the study where Jupiter and Saturn's post-instability orbits were most similar to their actual current orbits also produced systems of terrestrial planets that resembled the current solar system.

A paper, "Mar's Growth Stunted by an Early Giant Planet Instability," has been published in the online version of the scientific journal Icarus.

  Explore further: Mars and Earth may not have been early neighbors

More information: Mars' Growth Stunted by an Early Giant Planet Instability, arXiv:1804.04233 [astro-ph.EP] arxiv.org/abs/1804.04233

Matthew S. Clement et al, Mars' growth stunted by an early giant planet instability, Icarus (2018). DOI: 10.1016/j.icarus.2018.04.008


Journal reference: Icarus
Provided by: [url=https://phys.org/partners/university-of-oklahoma/]University of Oklahoma


Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-05-mars-growt...d.html#jCp
Along the vines of the Vineyard.
With a forked tongue the snake singsss...
Reply
...
EA on triangles and using internet triangle calculators


Quote:[Image: 41708211002_19b1c6999d_z.jpg]

https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/fa...sfact.html




Your triangle calculator yields results that suck.
Note in your triangle calculator image : "values to 3 significant figures"  Rofl

NASA is also notorious for bad rounding in their data fact sheets.
For instance they use 365.256 for the sidereal Earth year,
in their data fact sheet for Earth.
It is 365.25636 days ... they didn't even round it correctly.

Looks like I have to do the math for you again.

It isn't  --- 1.524 --- it is --- 1.523529412 --- just so you know, it makes a major difference.

What you are looking for is a 33.3 degree angle Naughty
That would be 90 degrees -- minus -- 56.7 degrees.

We will use your 1.524 -- that is the tangent of ---> 56.72839695 degrees.
Your 33.3 degree angle,
with those numbers is:
{90  minus  56.72839695}

33.27160305  degrees --- exact <---

33.27160305  degrees ... you may not think that is different than --- 33.3 degrees  Doh
but,
here is how different it is:
In degrees,
you have this factor of accuracy / error --- 0.999147239 --- Cry
In angle tangents:
you have this factor of accuracy / error --- 0.99892028 --- Nonono   that really sucks. 

now to translate that --- using the better and more forgiving of the two factors above:

your actual -- 33.27160305  degrees --- compared to 33.3  degrees
is like using the inverse phi angle:
inverse phi 
0.618033989 Whip
as the tangent for:
angle --- 31.71747442 degrees --- being bumped down to --- 31.69042699  degrees
which
has the tangent ---> 0.617381799  Whip ... and suddenly it isn't even close to inverse phi.


Quote:0.999147239 --- differential between 33.27160305  degrees --- and 33.3  degrees


on the Khufu Pyramid --- 51.84277341  degrees
becomes ------------------- 51.79856391  degrees

So if you stop all the above Whip and just use Carlotto's 33.3 degrees <---
you then have:
{90  minus  33.3 degrees}  
equals
56.7 degrees --- tangent = 1.522354507 <----> is not your -- 1.524
and 
the factor of error / accuracy ---> 0.99892028 --- Nonono   and that really sucks. 


It makes the Earth sidereal year  365.25636 days ---> 364.8619854 days 

...
Reply
I work for you
Recall:https://phys.org/news/2018-05-ancient-sc...p.html#jCp
Eye work 4U

Quote:Looks like I have to do the math for you again.

[Image: 317fab90df699043b7231a59418c7857.jpg]


ACCURACY VERSUS PRECISION

After performing measurements, it is important to consider both the accuracy and precision of the measurements. If your work is accurate, this means that your experimental situation matches your mathematical theories (or your measurements match your predictions). If your work is precise, this means that, after multiple measurements, your measurements are similar (or have low uncertainty). Countless factors can affect both the accuracy (correctness) and the precision (uncertainty) of your experiment and should be considered and discussed at the end of any laboratory exercise, particularly when comparing a final measured value to a known or accepted value. If you only have one measurement, you cannot discuss precision. Similarly, if you do not have a prediction, you cannot discuss accuracy.
An example of accuracy versus precision is shown in the figure below. The idea here is that you are aiming the small yellow arrow at the central red bulls-eye. If your yellow arrows always hit close to one another, you have achieved high precision, whether they are close to the bulls-eye or not. If the arrows average evenly around the bulls-eye, then you have achieved high accuracy, whether they are close together or not. The best situation is when the arrows hit both close together (high precision) and in the bulls-eye (high accuracy).
 [Image: ErrorFig8.jpg]
Consider another example in which a researcher is collecting gravitational acceleration data. If five measurements are collected then the following scenarios are possible.
1) high accuracy and high precision: 9.83 m/s2 ± 0.01 m/s2                                                                                                   
The measured value is close to known value of 9.8 m/s2 and has a low uncertainty of 0.01 m/s2.
2) high accuracy and low precision: 9.7 m/s2 ± 0.1 m/s2
The measured value is close to known value of 9.8 m/s2 and has a not-so-low uncertainty of 0.1 m/s2, compared to 0.01 m/s2.
3) low accuracy and high precision: 12.64 m/s2 ± 0.01 m/s2
The measured value is not close to known value of 9.8 m/s2 and has a low uncertainty of 0.01 m/s2. 
4) low accuracy and low precision: 12.64 m/s2 ± 0.1 m/s2
The measured value is not close to known value of 9.8 m/s2 and has a not-so-low uncertainty of 0.1 m/s2, compared to 0.01 m/s2.
 
Both accuracy and precision will play a role in explaining the discrepancy between a final measured value and a known or accepted value.
https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&...VwKuDEmabA
Both must always be considered in an error analysis discussion.

If a final measured value is found using combinations of several individual measured values, the uncertainty or precision of the final value is dependent on the uncertainty or precision of the individual measured values. The final uncertainty tells us to what degree we know our measurement is correct.
If a final measured value is found using combinations of several individual measured values, the accuracy of the final value is dependent on the accuracy of the individual measured values. The final accuracy tells us how correct the final value is.


Quote:It isn't  --- 1.524 --- it is --- 1.523529412 --- just so you know, it makes a major difference.

Have you factored in this error / era
Tempus fugit
Jibe Posit-bility Jive
Scientists have for decades posited that Earth's orbit around the sun goes from nearly circular to about 5 percent elliptical, and back again every 405,000 years.


Quote:It makes the Earth sidereal year  365.25636 days ---> 364.8619854 days

I don't really think the sidereal would be affected?

Only the ratio would be affected as  you claim is 1.523529412 
Or simply ~1.523529412 AU(Astronomical Unit. >Earth Centric) vs ANU (Astro Numerical Unit >Areocentric)

do you Jibe/Jive with nearly circular to about 5 percent elliptical, and back again?
https://phys.org/news/2018-05-ancient-sc...p.html#jCp

Both accuracy and precision will play a role in explaining the discrepancy between a final measured value and a known or accepted value.

Arrow  https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&...VwKuDEmabA
Both must always be considered in an error analysis discussion.
And if not...what is your factor of acc/err



The humans to Mars summit report

http://spaceref.com/mars/2018-humans-to-...ummit.html
- Download the report
Discussed within is the in situ resource utilization (ISRU) of Ice and Snow wich is invaluable to colonists.

The posited snow deposited over eras that veils the north-east side of the Face will be of vital necessity when the free-martians set-up shop.

Snow on Mars
Press Release From: Arizona State University
Posted: Wednesday, February 19, 2003

This image, taken by the Mars orbiter camera on NASA's Mars Global Surveyor spacecraft, shows gullies on martian crater walls that may be carved by liquid water melting from remnant snow packs. Numerous gullies are seen, with a remnant of the snow pack (arrow) proposed to be the source of water that eroded the gullies. This Mars orbiter camera image (number M09-2875) covers an area of 2.8 km (1.7 miles) by 4.5 km (2.8 miles) and is located at 33.3 degrees south, 92.9 degrees east. North is toward the top, and illumination is from the left.
[Image: pr20030219-1-sm.jpg]
Image Credit: NASA/JPL/MSSS/Phil Christensen
[Image: pr20030219-2-sm.jpg]
Image Credit: NASA/JPL/MSSS/Phil Christensen
This image, taken by the Mars orbiter camera on NASA's Mars Global Surveyor spacecraft, shows the details of remnant snowpacks found in protected hollows on the cold, pole-facing slopes in Dao Valles. This Mars orbiter camera image (number M03-04950) covers an area of 2.8 km (1.7 miles) by 5 km (3.1 miles) and is located at 35.7 degrees south, 90.9 degrees east. North is toward the top, and illumination is from the left.
This visible-light image, taken by the thermal emission imaging system on NASA's 2001 Mars Odyssey spacecraft, indicates that gullies on martian crater walls may be carved by liquid water melting from remnant snow packs. The gullies in the top right-center appear to emerge from beneath and within a gradually disappearing blanket of snow. The current snow pack in this crater (located at 43 degrees south, 214 degrees east) appears to remain only on the cold, pole facing cater wall (top). On the less-shaded, warmer sides of the crater (left), the snow cover has completely disappeared, leaving the gullies exposed. The image shows an area 12.6 km (7.8 miles) by 10.3 km (6,4 miles). North is toward the top, and illumination is from the left.
[Image: pr20030219-3-sm.jpg]
Image Credit: NASA/JPL/ASU
[Image: pr20030219-4-sm.jpg]
Image Credit: NASA/JPL/ASU
This visible-light image, taken by the thermal emission imaging system on NASA's 2001 Mars Odyssey spacecraft, indicates that gullies on martian crater walls may be carved by liquid water melting from remnant snow packs. The gullies in the top right-center appear to emerge from beneath and within a gradually disappearing blanket of snow. The current snow pack in this crater (located at 43 degrees south, 214 degrees east) appears to remain only on the cold, pole facing cater wall (top). On the less-shaded, warmer sides of the crater (left), the snow cover has completely disappeared, leaving the gullies exposed. The image shows an area 14.8 km (9.2 miles) by 21.6 km (13.4 miles). Nort
Along the vines of the Vineyard.
With a forked tongue the snake singsss...
Reply
Quote:It isn't  --- 1.524 --- it is --- 1.523529412 --- just so you know, it makes a major difference.
Scientists have for decades posited that Earth's orbit around the sun goes from nearly circular to about 5 percent elliptical, and back again every 405,000 years.

Same  Sheep difference.
Base Model. https://phys.org/news/2018-05-ancient-sc...p.html#jCp
(Earth) ~1 AU : ~1.52 AU (Mars) 
[Image: 25021914162_947446e661_b.jpg]


Why don't you calculate that angle for fun Vic.

From my original idea of using the orbital parameters of Mars' / Earth's orbits as Adjacent data sets...
that become lengths of a right triangle.
Just go ahead and calculate the Ratio you propose between the semi-major axis' and project it onto Face on Mars.
First,though,these two legs of the triangle must be mirrored to become the width and height of a reference frame rectangle.

Recall:
Quote:Jupiter and Venus exert such strong influences because of size and proximity. Venus is the nearest planet to us—at its farthest, only about 162 million miles—and roughly similar in mass. Jupiter is much farther away, but is the Solar System's largest planet, 2.5 times bigger than all others combined.


Linda Hinnov, a professor at George Mason University who studies the deep past, said the new study lends support to previous studies by others that claim to have observed signs of the 405,000-year cycle even further back, before 250 million years ago. Among other things, she said, it "could lead to new insights into early dinosaur evolution." She called the findings "a significant new contribution to geology, and to astronomy."

Kent and Olsen say that because of all the competing factors at work, there is still much to learn. "This is truly complicated stuff," said Olsen. "We are using basically the same kinds of math to send spaceships to Mars, and sure, that works. But once you start extending interplanetary motions back in time and tie that to cause and effect in climate, we can't claim that we understand how it all works." The metronomic beat of the 405,000-year cycle may eventually help researchers disentangle some of this, he said.


.
Along the vines of the Vineyard.
With a forked tongue the snake singsss...
Reply
...


Quote:Why don't you calculate that angle for fun Vic.


Not interested in doing your homework.
If that is your new standard for the Cydonia City Grid -- 33.27 degrees,
directly pointing to your NASA data as evidence,
that is fine actually, just clarify that,
or simply say ...  it's close enough to Carlotto's number in degrees ...
All the rest of what you posted was excess and fluff.

I will give you this much,
your 33.27 degrees,
it's closer than  my 33.3333223 degrees   Lol
Remember, I chose 33.33333333~ blahblahblah degrees,
as the statistically best choice IMO, to study Carlotto's selected angle by.
One somewhat submits the angle tangent to a ferocious barrage of harmonic code tests. 

It could be that I am getting too good at extracting spectacular harmonic code fractions,
out of these various angle tangents.
For instance,
in harmonic code you can do this.
You can -- square ---  Pi -- 6 times, 
then divide by:
10 to the 32nd power  =  0.657040064 =  tangent 33.30651732 degrees.

It's pretty, even Carlotto smiled  Hi
and it has 10 times the accuracy of your angle Whip

But it isn't any good either. Nonono
When you swim in an ocean of wide ranging possibilities,
you often have a deep wide ocean crossing to endure.
Narrowing down the spread of the possibilities,
shrinks the size of the ocean you have to cross, dramatically.
That is the nature of harmonic code,
when focused at a target value,
it converges a highly coherent and precise formula with extreme accuracy,
by eliminating possibilities at an exponential pace.

But then I don't attribute Carlotto's  angle to the City and a solstice on Mars.
Do you?
Is this 33.27 degrees of yours,
the new solstice angle that the City Grid is located on then?
What is it that you want with your 33.27 degrees to be seen as?

Is there a ... plus or minus ... limit --- to Carlotto's 33.3 degrees?
How about 33.2 degrees? .. or ... 33.4 degrees?
Do they work?
As even the minutest limit spread increases,
the range of unusual statistically mathematical interpretations exponentially rises. 

The key would be to see what Carlotto says about his own angle choice.
Was he tuning it to precision with accuracy,
or did he simply round off to a convenient figure that doesn't take up a lot of space,
in an image caption?   Cry

In regard to your choice to use the NASA data that you highlighted,
to arrive at your 33.27 degrees,
I feel that the City Grid goes far beyond that simplicity,
but it is nonetheless interesting.
I expect a more robust interpretation to be attuned to the true angle of the City Grid.

However we are both deviating from Carlotto's number.
I think he rounded off, but I don't know.
I will keep my 33.333333333~ degree angle tangent study, ... simply that,
an angle tangent study,
with no attributions to Martian solstices or Cydonia City Grids,
other than it is coincidentally and interpretively close.
Carlotto's 33.3 degrees is good enough for me.
Both our works were an exercise in excess.

But I especially enjoyed the results of my angle tangent study,
that I interpreted for 33.3333333333~ degrees.

...
Reply
Vianova:
But then I don't attribute Carlotto's  angle to the City and a solstice on Mars.
Do you?
Is this 33.27 degrees of yours,
the new solstice angle that the City Grid is located on then?
What is it that you want with your 33.27 degrees to be seen as?

Quote:If I was standing on Mars, how high in the sky would Earth reach before the sun rose?
At its highest, how high above the horizon would Earth be before the sun was visible?

zelmerszoetrop

Mathematics | Number Theory & Machine Learning5 points·5 years ago

Earth would rise highest when Earth-Sun-Moon form a 90 degree angle.

Earth is 1 AU from the Sun, and Mars is 1.52 AU from the sun. Therefore, the angle of this triangle at Mars is arctan(1/1.52)=33.3 degrees.
[Image: 4542423536_432b9bfbd2_z.jpg]Earth From Mars by NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, on Flickr
For comparison, Venus rises 35.7 degrees at most.
So, Earth in the Martian sky would rise about as high as Venus does in ours.

MrGoodbytes
2 points·5 years ago
So even though Earth is further away from the Sun, that great distance is offset by Mars' distance from the sun?
(trying to understand why it's not higher than Venus is to us)

Sycosys
3 points·5 years ago
yes.
on mars, venus would rise lower and mercury even lower than it does here because the apparent size of the orbits decreases the farther away from the sun that you get.
It is all relative..
Move mars closer and earth rises higher, move it farther and it rises lower.. all because the relative size of the orbits increases or decreases from your perspective

MrGoodbytes
1 point·5 years ago
Gotcha, thanks.

Is there a ... plus or minus ... limit --- to Carlotto's 33.3 degrees?
How about 33.2 degrees? .. or ... 33.4 degrees?
Do they work?
As even the minutest limit spread increases,
the range of unusual statistically mathematical interpretations exponentially rises.

What if it isn't an exponent rising?
What if it was a point in the sky?
Maybe thatz the point?           Arrow     .

US???
[Image: earthrisecydonia.gif]
=~33.3 degrees... before the Sun = 333,000 to Earth's One breaks dawn.
Along the vines of the Vineyard.
With a forked tongue the snake singsss...
Reply
(05-08-2018, 12:19 AM)EA Wrote: https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/yxdok/if_i_was_standing_on_mars_how_high_in_the_sky/
Sycosys

3 points·5 years ago
yes.
on mars, venus would rise lower and mercury even lower than it does here because the apparent size of the orbits decreases the farther away from the sun that you get.
It is all relative..
Move mars closer and earth rises higher, move it farther and it rises lower.. all because the relative size of the orbits increases or decreases from your perspective


Quote:Scientists have for decades posited  that Earth's orbit around the sun goes from nearly circular to about 5 percent elliptical, and back again every 405,000 years. The shift is believed to result from a complex interplay with the gravitational influences of Venus and Jupiter, along with other bodies in the Solar System as they all whirl around the Sun like a set of gyrating hula-hoops, sometimes closer to one another, sometimes further. Astrophysicists believe the mathematical calculation of the cycle is reliable back to around 50 million years, but after that, the problem gets too complex, because too many shifting motions are at play.

MrGoodbytes
1 point·5 years ago
Gotcha, thanks.


Earth's orbital changes have influenced climate, life forms for at least 215 million years

May 7, 2018, Columbia University


[Image: inancientroc.jpg]
Within ancient rocks in Arizona's Petrified Forest National Park, scientists have identified signs of a regular variation in Earth's orbit that influences climate. Here, one of the authors near the research site. Credit: Kevin Krajick/Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory

Scientists drilling deep into ancient rocks in the Arizona desert say they have documented a gradual shift in Earth's orbit that repeats regularly every 405,000 years, playing a role in natural climate swings. Astrophysicists have long hypothesized that the cycle exists based on calculations of celestial mechanics, but the authors of the new research have found the first verifiable physical evidence. They showed that the cycle has been stable for hundreds of millions of years, from before the rise of dinosaurs, and is still active today. The research may have implications not only for climate studies, but our understanding of the evolution of life on Earth, and the evolution of the Solar System. It appears this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.



Scientists have for decades posited that Earth's orbit around the sun goes from nearly circular to about 5 percent elliptical, and back again every 405,000 years. The shift is believed to result from a complex interplay with the gravitational influences of Venus and Jupiter, along with other bodies in the Solar System as they all whirl around the Sun like a set of gyrating hula-hoops, sometimes closer to one another, sometimes further. Astrophysicists believe the mathematical calculation of the cycle is reliable back to around 50 million years, but after that, the problem gets too complex, because too many shifting motions are at play.

"There are other, shorter, orbital cycles, but when you look into the past, it's very difficult to know which one you're dealing with at any one time, because they change over time," said lead author Dennis Kent, an expert in paleomagnetism at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory and Rutgers University. "The beauty of this one is that it stands alone. It doesn't change. All the other ones move over it."

The new evidence lies within 1,500-foot-long cores of rock that Kent and his coauthors drilled from a butte in Arizona's Petrified Forest National Park in 2013, plus earlier deep cores from suburban New York and New Jersey. The Arizona rocks in the study formed during the late Triassic, between 209 million and 215 million years ago, when the area was covered with meandering rivers that laid down sediments. Around this time, early dinosaurs started evolving.

[Image: 1-inancientroc.jpg]
Coauthor John Geissman of the University of Texas, Dallas, pulls a drilled-out core of rock used in the study. The drilling penetrated more than 1,500 feet, going back some 250 million years. Credit: Kevin Krajick/Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory
The scientists nailed down the Arizona rocks' ages by analyzing interspersed volcanic ash layers containing radioisotopes that decay at a predictable rate. Within the sediments, they also detected repeated reversals in the polarity of the planet's magnetic field. The team then compared these findings to the New York-New Jersey cores, which penetrated old lakebeds and soils that hold exquisitely preserved signs of alternating wet and dry periods during what was believed to be the same time.

Kent and Olsen have long argued that the climate changes displayed in the New York-New Jersey rocks were controlled by the 405,000-year cycle. However, there are no volcanic ash layers there to provide precise dates. But those cores do contain polarity reversals similar to those spotted in Arizona. By combining the two sets of data, the team showed that both sites developed at the same time, and that the 405,000-year interval indeed exerts a kind of master control over climate swings. Paleontologist Paul Olsen, a coauthor of the study, said that the cycle does not directly change climate; rather it intensifies or dampens the effects of shorter-term cycles, which act more directly.

 

The planetary motions that spur climate swings are known as Milankovitch cycles, named for the Serbian mathematician who worked them out in the 1920s. Boiled down to simplest terms, they consist of a 100,000-year cycle in the eccentricity of Earth's orbit, similar to the big 405,000-year swing; a 41,000-year cycle in the tilt of Earth's axis relative to its orbit around the Sun; and a 21,000-year cycle caused by a wobble of the planet's axis. Together, these shifts change the proportions of solar energy reaching the Northern Hemisphere, where most of the planet's land is located, during different parts of the year. This in turn influences climate.

In the 1970s, scientists showed that that Milankovitch cycles have driven repeated warming and cooling of the planet, and thus the waxing and waning of ice ages over the last few million years. But they are still arguing over inconsistencies in data over that period, and the cycles' relationships to rising and falling levels of carbon dioxide, the other apparent master climate control. Understanding how this all worked in the more distant past is even harder. For one, the frequencies of the shorter cycles have almost certainly changed over time, but no one can say exactly by how much. For another, the cycles are all constantly proceeding against each other. Sometimes some are out of phase with others, and they tend to cancel each other out; at others, several may line up with each other to initiate sudden, drastic changes. Making the calculation of how they all might fit together gets harder the further back you go.

[Image: 2-inancientroc.jpg]
Sediments laid down in what is now Arizona more than 200 million years ago, before the rise of dinosaurs, were matched with similar earlier cores taken in New York and New Jersey. Here, a freshly pulled core. Credit: Kevin Krajick/Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory
Kent and Olsen say that every 405,000 years, when orbital eccentricity is at its peak, seasonal differences caused by shorter cycles will become more intense; summers are hotter and winters colder; dry times drier, wet times wetter. The opposite will be true 202,500 years later, when the orbit is at its most circular. During the late Triassic, for poorly understood reasons, the Earth was much warmer than it is now through many cycles, and there was little to no glaciation. Then, the 405,000-year cycle showed up in strongly alternating wet and dry periods. Precipitation peaked when the orbit was at its most eccentric, producing deep lakes that left layers of black shale in eastern North America. When the orbit was most circular, things dried up, leaving lighter layers of soil exposed to the air.

Jupiter and Venus exert such strong influences because of size and proximity. Venus is the nearest planet to us—at its farthest, only about 162 million miles—and roughly similar in mass. Jupiter is much farther away, but is the Solar System's largest planet, 2.5 times bigger than all others combined.

Linda Hinnov, a professor at George Mason University who studies the deep past, said the new study lends support to previous studies by others that claim to have observed signs of the 405,000-year cycle even further back, before 250 million years ago. Among other things, she said, it "could lead to new insights into early dinosaur evolution." She called the findings "a significant new contribution to geology, and to astronomy."

Kent and Olsen say that because of all the competing factors at work, there is still much to learn. "This is truly complicated stuff," said Olsen. "We are using basically the same kinds of math to send spaceships to Mars, and sure, that works. But once you start extending interplanetary motions back in time and tie that to cause and effect in climate, we can't claim that we understand how it all works." The metronomic beat of the 405,000-year cycle may eventually help researchers disentangle some of this, he said.

If you were wondering, the Earth is currently in the nearly circular part of the 405,000-year period. What does that mean for us? "Probably not anything very perceptible," says Kent. "It's pretty far down on the list of so many other things that can affect climate on times scales that matter to us." Kent points out that according to the Milankovitch theory, we should be at the peak of a 20,000-some year warming trend that ended the last glacial period; the Earth may eventually start cooling again over thousands of years, and possibly head for another glaciation. "Could happen. Guess we could wait around and see," said Kent. "On the other hand, all the CO2 we're pouring into the air right now is the obvious big enchilada. That's having an effect we can measure right now. The planetary cycle is a little more subtle."

Explore further: Earth's orbital variations and sea ice synch glacial periods

More information: Dennis V. Kent el al., "Empirical evidence for stability of the 405-kiloyear Jupiter–Venus eccentricity cycle over hundreds of millions of years," PNAS (2018). www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1800891115


Journal reference: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences [/url]
Provided by: [url=https://phys.org/partners/the-earth-institute--columbia-university/]Columbia University



Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-05-ancient-sc...p.html#jCp


Can it be said that from a Free Martian's perspective:
[Image: Quadrature_astronomy.png]
A hominid astronomer in-situ sum-where on Mars can plainly see that Earth's highest ascent is ~33.3 degrees above the plain he stands on and views in reference to?

I'm not talking tetrahedrons , phi or e/pi etc...here,now.

Mars = ~1 ANU
Earth = ~.666 ANU

Ecliptic Sheep  Eliptic

Scientists have for decades posited that Earth's orbit around the sun goes from nearly circular to about 5 percent elliptical, and back again every 405,000 years.
Along the vines of the Vineyard.
With a forked tongue the snake singsss...
Reply
Quote:The key would be to see what Carlotto says about his own angle choice.
Was he tuning it to precision with accuracy,
or did he simply round off to a convenient figure that doesn't take up a lot of space,
in an image caption?   [Image: cry.png]
Quote:You can read the methods for yourself.[Image: 41634642431_8c88162da4_o.jpg]



https://books.google.ca/books?id=srxWAgA...rs&f=false

In regard to your choice to use the NASA data that you highlighted,
to arrive at your 33.27 degrees,
I feel that the City Grid goes far beyond that simplicity,
but it is nonetheless interesting.
I expect a more robust interpretation to be attuned to the true angle of the City Grid.

However we are both deviating from Carlotto's number.
I think he rounded off, but I don't know.
Arrow   https://books.google.ca/books?id=srxWAgA...rs&f=false

Vic I think that angle he drew under the '33.3 city-grid' was Carlotto's simple method to aid the eye.

I get the feeling you think it is some kind of pointer(like RCH's line to solstice from the center of the 'city-square' thru the mouth of the face on mars)
It doesn't seem to me from the context that he intended that graphic as  a solstice sight-line.

It seems it is a general way of showing the repose -north of east- which would underline the south facet of the D&M for graphic effect only.
I get no sense from reading him that this angle he drew or the vertex were intended as an actual  Arrow  "POINTER"
...~33.3 is the rule of thumb.

"I think he rounded off, but I don't know."
Quote:The last explaination for the alignment is the original one suggested by Hoagland

-that it has some kind of archeo-astronomical significance.Instead of using

the angle of Hoagland's line from the City Square through the mouth of the

Face,(23.5* north of east),if we use the average of the orientations of the Face,

Fort,Starfish Pyramid,Rounded Formation and Mounds(33.3* north of east)


we get not one but eight dates within the last half-million years satisfying the

summer solstice alignment:33,000, 120,000, 160,000, 200,000, 330,000,
390,000, and 450,000 years B.P.(figure 73).


https://books.google.ca/books?id=srxWAgA...rs&f=false

(dates within the last half-million years ) Arrow

Scientists have for decades posited that Earth's orbit around the sun goes from nearly circular to about 5 percent elliptical, and back again every 405,000 years.

It seems fair to say that that vertex/ angle he drew means nothing as a 'vantage-point' to see the sunrise on the solstice.

Just a graphic indicator of an average of the Mounds and other land-forms / structures. = ~33.3 degrees.

Generally speaking as far as the stone's cry out from cydonia. thirty three and a third is the ~WORD
According to Carlotto
Along the vines of the Vineyard.
With a forked tongue the snake singsss...
Reply
...
EA says

Quote: thirty three and a third is the ~WORD


that would be 33 and 0.333333333333333333333333333333~ degrees then,

lol

I think you misinterpret some of what Carlotto means on averages,
but maybe in the way you present it all, I just misinterpret you.
I really don't care anymore.

There never was any disagreement on the City Grid being around 33.3 degrees,
and that actually has nothing to do with averages, 
it is pretty much aligned 33.3 degrees north of due east. 
Where we disagree is in the Face angles.
Using the best choice of Face images available --  Keith's -- we came up with alternative angles,
that were made specific by a pixel count analysis.

Using smaller available images of the Face that look like a blurry dink blot Whip seems inappropriate.
You can use the 56.7 degree angle in The Face if you choose to,
that is just fine.
I will certainly stick with the recent tetrahdral anlaysis we came up with,
in my approach to looking at Face geometry.

I did however "Max the Knife" a mirror symmetry on Mound E,
reflecting that triangular formation seen on one side of the full original mound,
to the other side as well.
It was interesting to see the symmetry results, though a bit blurry from over processing,
and somewhat ... dink blotted Whip on the interior landscpae of the final form.

Reefer



Quote:Hoaglands 23.5 degrees  -- line from City Square through Face Mouth

The assumption here is that 23.5 degrees has to do with our Earth axial tilt?
Currently at 23.4 degrees ... and decreasing. 

It can also go up to 24.5 degrees ... and down to 22.1 degrees.
So here again,
angles can have important interpretations within a smidgeon of eachother.

This version,
is more solidly stable for instance:

arctangent -- inverse -- {phi x sqrt 2}  =  23.6 0609878 degrees 

The angle tangent would be more clearly written like this:
1
divided by
{phi x sqrt 2}

...
Reply
cool.
Quote:
Quote: Wrote:Hoaglands 23.5 degrees  -- line from City Square through Face Mouth

The assumption here is that 23.5 degrees has to do with our Earth axial tilt?
Currently at 23.4 degrees ... and decreasing. 

It can also go up to 24.5 degrees ... and down to 22.1 degrees.
So here again,
angles can have important interpretations within a smidgeon of eachother.

On the subject of Earth as observed by an ancient and accepted Free Martian, Consider this:

Take my place as "The Man From The West" looking East --->>>
[Image: avatar_661.jpg?dateline=1459284718]
Note the Earth would  rise before the sun @ quadrature =Earth~33.3 degrees above the horizon.

Conversely... There is the "OTHER" @ quadrature, at another time...

Now you become "The Man From The East" looking West <<<---


Note the Earth would set before the sun @ quadrature =Sol~33.3 degrees above the horizon.

Basically when Earth is at 90 degrees to Mars and the Sun during Either quadrature.

If you were in the same spot looking at the Entire 180 degree Arc of the heavens you may note sum-thing besides time passing by...

If you Subtracted the ~33.3 to the East and the ~33.3 from the West From the 180 degree Arc of the Dome above from E-horizon to W-horizon you would be left with 90 degrees plus the Axial tilt of the Earth.

Square that away in your mind.

180* -90* - ~23.439281*  =2 x 33.2803595


You end up with a 90 degree angle,~Earth's axial tilt,and a Pair of ~33.3's

Thus one must consider the message of Cydonia is intended for us.
Along the vines of the Vineyard.
With a forked tongue the snake singsss...
Reply
...
That is fun and interesting, and even compelling.
Your number 23.439281 degrees is a current mean obliquity value with limitations,
and does not represent the long term average from what I can see.


Quote:For the past 5 million years, 
Earth's obliquity has varied between 22° 2′ 33″ and 24° 30′ 16″, 
with a mean period of 41,040 years


That average looks to be 23.55 degrees.
Using your formula:

180*  minus  90*  minus 23.55*  =  66.45 degrees --- divide by two  =  33.225 degrees Whip

Not Carlotto's 33.3 degrees Nonono

And Hoagland called it 23.5 degrees.


So 180 - 90 - 23.5 = 66.5 --- and thatza pair of --- 33.25  degree angles.

It's close, but it's no cigar.
It gets even odder.


Quote:For the next 1 million years, the cycle will carry the obliquity between 22° 13′ 44″ and 24° 20′ 50″

That average is 23.28333333~  degrees --- 
use your formula:

180*  minus  90*  minus  23.28333333~*  =  66.7166666 -- divide by two -- 33.3583333 degrees

So in essence, 
the event on Mars with the City Grid would be far more ancient than just 5 million years, 
looking at the Earth axial tilt average over the last 5 million years.

What was the Earth axial tilt average accounted for by Cydonians ... whenever .. then .. was?

It would have to be exactly 23.4 degrees,
for Carlotto's 33.3 degree angle,
using your formula.

NASA data
distance to sun
Earth  92,900,000 
Mars 141,600,000 
ratio:
0.656073446 --- tangent of ----> 33.26781672 degrees Whip


So if any of the above are close enough to 33.3 in your estimation,
that is certainly within the probable and acceptable concepts of most viewers.
And Carlotto himself,
may not argue the differential in the above 33.225 - or - 33.25 degree angles presented,
to his  33.3 degree angle.

I see a difference from my perspective.
A 33.25 degree angle,
is 
0.05 degrees short

subtract that from the inverse Phi angle {which is closely nearby in value}

arctangent  0.618033989 {inverse phi}  =  31.71747442 degrees

now subtract 0.05 degrees  =  31.66747442  degrees
and
that angle has this tangent --->  0.616828646 <---> compare to inverse phi -- 0.618033989

Nonono

Not even close.
That is what concerns me from a purist and precision perspective on the whole matter.


...
Reply
(05-24-2018, 03:47 AM)Vianova Wrote: ...
That is fun and interesting, and even compelling.
Your number 23.439281 degrees is a current mean obliquity value with limitations,
and does not represent the long term average from what I can see.

Well,I guess you can only move the goalpost so far... we ain't talkin' bout the dinosaur-face on mars now.
You left out the 5% Elipse every .4 million years.

Ecliptic [Image: sheep.gif]  Eliptic
Converse to your statement I post this variable again before I quote Carlotto below.

Scientists have for decades posited that Earth's orbit around the sun goes from nearly circular to about 5 percent elliptical, and back again every 405,000 years. The shift is believed to result from a complex interplay with the gravitational influences of Venus and Jupiter, along with other bodies in the Solar System as they all whirl around the Sun like a set of gyrating hula-hoops, sometimes closer to one another, sometimes further. Astrophysicists believe the mathematical calculation of the cycle is reliable back to around 50 million years, but after that, the problem gets too complex, because too many shifting motions are at play.

"There are other, shorter, orbital cycles, but when you look into the past, it's very difficult to know which one you're dealing with at any one time, because they change over time," said lead author Dennis Kent, an expert in paleomagnetism at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory and Rutgers University. "The beauty of this one is that it stands alone. It doesn't change. All the other ones move over it."




Mark Carlotto:predictions

If the Cydonia complex is artificial, its existence will raise many questions. For example, one would have to wonder about the site's alignment. Why is it oriented 33.3 degrees north of east, instead of along the compass directions?

Because of changes in the location of the Martian poles over time, Tom Van Flandern has argued that the complex was at one time situated at or near the equator and oriented in a nearly east-west direction. But I have found two other sites that have an alignment similar to the Cydonian site which contain pyramidal structures with southern faces that are oriented exactly due south (to within measurement error). This suggests a different reason for the alignment.

If it is in fact solsticial, as first suggested by Richard Hoagland, recent research suggests that it was last satisfied as early as about 33,000 years ago (rather than 500,000 years ago as calculated by Hoagland). As mentioned in an earlier column, this is an interesting coincidence as it was a period of rapid evolutionary change on Earth.

Quote:How our ancestors with autistic traits led a revolution in Ice Age art
http://carlotto.us/martianenigmas/Articles/Predictions/Predictions.shtml
(Page last updated 27 March 1998)
May 14, 2018 by Shelley Hughes, University of York


[Image: howourancest.jpg]
Detailed illustrations of lions painted in the Chauvet Cave. Credit: Wikimedia Commons
The ability to focus on detail, a common trait among people with autism, allowed realism to flourish in Ice Age art, according to researchers at the University of York.
Mark Carlotto:predictions

During this time, modern man (Homo sapiens sapiens) somehow developed sophisticated artistic and cognitive skills - skills that another humanoid species, the Neanderthal, did not have. Could the construction of a humanoid face on Mars have something to do with the sudden appearance of modern man on Earth?

I admit that these speculations may seem a bit far-fetched. But remember, the Red Planet has been full of surprises - from Lowell's Mars crisscrossed by canals and populated by intelligent Martians, to the pre-Mariner 9 Mars which seemed more like the Moon than the Earth, to the Mars that we know to have enormous volcanoes, vast canyon systems, and water channels, to a Mars that now many believe may harbor microbial life. It seems as if the cycle of science and speculation has gone almost full circle.


http://carlotto.us/martianenigmas/Articl...ions.shtml
(Page last updated 27 March 1998)

© 2017 Mark J. Carlotto


Vianova:
So in essence, 
the event on Mars with the City Grid would be far more ancient than just 5 million years, 
looking at the Earth axial tilt average over the last 5 million years.

What was the Earth axial tilt average accounted for by Cydonians ... whenever .. then .. was?

"... whenever .. then .. was?"Zep Tepi?




Hominid / Feline Hypothesis:
Friday, July 21st, 2017, 07:20 pm (This post was last modified: Friday, July 21st, 2017, 07:23 pm by EA.)
Quote: Wrote:The researchers report that they found over 13,000 genes that were similar through all of the species included in the study. They also found that the cats all diverged from a single ancestor approximately 4.6 million years ago—one that was apparently most like the modern leopard. The team also found that all of the species populations have also declined over the past 300,000 years, which means lower genetic diversity.

[Image: catbox5.jpg]Within Last~5 million years

Now we have an ancient Date Datum to begin with...
Tempus Fugit.

That leaves The Hominid factor.

Quote:Six caves containing some of the oldest known art have been awarded World Heritage status by the UN's cultural agency, UNESCO.
Items dating back more than 40,000 years -- to a time when modern humans first arrived in Europe -- were hidden at the site in the Swabian Jura region of southern Germany.
The cave complex has yielded a wealth of prehistoric carvings and musical instruments, such as flutes made from vulture bone. Over 50 figurines have been found at the site, including depictions of cave lions, mammoths and other animals native to the area during the ice age.
The six-centimeter-tall Venus of Hohle Fels is among the sculptures uncovered. The mammoth ivory figurine is the oldest known depiction of a human being.
[Image: http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.cnn.com%2Fcnnnext%2Fdam...tworks.jpg]
This female figurine -- named "Venus from Hohe Fels" -- was found in the Hohe Fels Cave in the Ach Valley and is the oldest figurine of its kind worldwide. Credit: Universität Tübingen

Other finds include a phallus made from siltstone that look like a blurry dink blot, and a zoomorphic carving known as "Lion man" -- the oldest undisputed example of figurative art ever discovered.
This is in  Hohlenstein Stade. [Image: 582158_394798360575615_133756682_n.jpg]28 cm high and was found in 1939′ in the cave of Hohlenstein-Stadel in the Valley of Lone, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany. It is one of the oldest known sculptures on planet Earth. photo via Robert Sepehr.

Most of the objects uncovered in the caves date back to between 33,000 and 43,000 years ago and were carved using stone implements. Tools used by Neanderthals, some of which are over 60,000 years old, have also been found at the site.

https://www.cnn.com/style/article/unesco...index.html

Obviously if the Message of Cydonia is intended for US
We have 4-D cydonia.
This indeed is fun and interesting, and even compelling.

Carlotto:"As mentioned in an earlier column, this is an interesting coincidence as it was a period of rapid evolutionary change on Earth. "

How our ancestors with autistic traits led a revolution in Ice Age art
May 14, 2018 by Shelley Hughes, University of York


[Image: howourancest.jpg]
Detailed illustrations of lions painted in the Chauvet Cave. Credit: Wikimedia Commons
The ability to focus on detail, a common trait among people with autism, allowed realism to flourish in Ice Age art, according to researchers at the University of York.



Around 30,000 years ago realistic art suddenly flourished in Europe. Extremely accurate depictions of bears, bison, horses and lions decorate the walls of Ice Age archaeological sites such as Chauvet Cave in southern France.

Why our ice age ancestors created exceptionally realistic art rather than the very simple or stylised art of earlier modern humans has long perplexed researchers.

Many have argued that psychotropic drugs were behind the detailed illustrations. The popular idea that drugs might make people better at art led to a number of ethically-dubious studies in the 60s where participants were given art materials and LSD.

The authors of the new study discount that theory, arguing instead that individuals with "detail focus", a trait linked to autism, kicked off an artistic movement that led to the proliferation of realistic cave drawings across Europe.

Lead author of the paper, Professor Penny Spikins from the Department of Archaelogy at the University of York, said: "Detail focus is what determines whether you can draw realistically; you need it in order to be a talented realistic artist. This trait is found very commonly in people with autism and rarely occurs in people without it.

"We looked at the evidence from studies attempting to identify a link between artistic talent and drug use, and found that drugs can only serve to disinhibit individuals with a pre-existing ability. The idea that people with a high degree of detail focus, many of which may have had autism, set a trend for extreme realism in ice age art is a more convincing explanation."

The research adds to a growing body of evidence that people with autistic traits played an important role in human evolution.

Professor Spikins added: "Individuals with this trait – both those who would be diagnosed with autism in the modern day and those that wouldn't – likely played an important part in human evolution and survival as we colonised Europe.

"As well as contributing to early culture, people with the attention to detail needed to paint realistic art would also have had the focus to create complex tools from materials such as bone, rock and wood. These skills became increasingly important in enabling us to adapt to the harsh environments we encountered in Europe."

"How do we explain 'autistic traits' in European Upper Palaeolithic art?" Is published in Open Archaeology.

[Image: 1x1.gif] Explore further: Autism and human evolutionary success

More information: Penny Spikins et al. How Do We Explain 'Autistic Traits' in European Upper Palaeolithic Art?, Open Archaeology (2018). DOI: 10.1515/opar-2018-0016


Provided by: University of York


Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-05-ancestors-...e.html#jCp
Along the vines of the Vineyard.
With a forked tongue the snake singsss...
Reply
The Hominid/Feline hypothesis also presents this mirror back from an earth hominoid's perspective.

Mars will exceed 24'' in diameter between July 23rd and August 9th, 2018. This is 97 percent of the maximum of 25.13'' diameter attained during the last of the "favorable" apparitions, which occurred in 2003. During the 2003 apparition, Mars came within 34.6 million miles to Earth, closer than at any time in over nearly sixty thousand years!


Obliquity to orbit (deg)
Mars 25.19

Inclination of equator (deg)
Mars 25.19


[Image: mars-2016-2018-NASA-e1449314087591.jpg]

Every once and awhile in Man/lion's history

The axial tilt and aperant size of mars are nearly the same.

~25.1
Along the vines of the Vineyard.
With a forked tongue the snake singsss...
Reply
Quote:I admit that these speculations may seem a bit far-fetched. But remember, the Red Planet has been full of surprises - from Lowell's Mars crisscrossed by canals and populated by intelligent Martians, to the pre-Mariner 9 Mars which seemed more like the Moon than the Earth, to the Mars that we know to have enormous volcanoes, vast canyon systems, and water channels, to a Mars that now many believe may harbor microbial life. It seems as if the cycle of science and speculation has gone almost full circle.

http://carlotto.us/martianenigmas/Articl...ions.shtml
(Page last updated 27 March 1998)

© 2017 Mark J. Carlotto

more on Hominid / Feline Hypothetical timeframe

Ancient meteorite tells tales of Mars topography
May 24, 2018 by Anne M Stark, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory


[Image: ancientmeteo.jpg]
Martian meteorite Northwest Africa (NWA) 7034, nicknamed "Black Beauty," weighs approximately 11 ounces (320 grams). Credit: NASA
By looking at an ancient Martian meteorite that landed in the Sahara Desert, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) scientists and collaborators have determined how and when the red planet's crustal topographic and geophysical divide formed.



Northwest Africa (NWA) 7034 is the oldest Martian meteorite discovered to date, at approximately 4.4 billion years old. The meteorite is a breccia (it contains a variety of different crustal rocks that were mixed together and then sintered by heating) and is the only sample from Mars with a composition that is representative of the average Martian crust. The meteorite provided the researchers a unique opportunity to study the ancient crust on Mars.

The team applied a number a radioisotopic dating techniques to determine that the divide (or dichotomy) between the heavily cratered southern highlands of the planet and the smoother plains of the northern lowlands formed prior to the formation of NWA 7034 at 4.4 billion years ago. This ancient age is consistent with a giant impact origin for the crustal dichotomy. The research appears in the May 23 edition of the journal Science Advances.

"If the Martian crustal dichotomy formed as a result of a giant impact, and available data and modeling suggest this is likely, the history of NWA 7034 requires that it formed very early in the planet's history, before 4.4 billion years ago," said LLNL cosmochemist Bill Cassata, lead author of the paper.

The dichotomy is a sharp contrast between the southern hemisphere and northern. The two hemispheres' geography differ in elevation by 1 to 3 kilometers (km). The average thickness of the Martian crust is 45 km, with 32 km in the northern lowlands region and 58 km in the southern highlands. The northern lowlands comprise about one-third of the surface of Mars and are relatively flat. The other two-thirds of the Martian surface are the highlands of the southern hemisphere. The difference in elevation between the hemispheres is dramatic (the highlands are very mountainous and volcanic). Three major hypotheses have been proposed for the origin of the crustal dichotomy: endogenic (by mantle processes), single impact or multiple impacts.

[Image: 1-ancientmeteo.jpg]
Backscattered scanning electron microscope image of NWA 11522, a meteorite similar to NWA 7034. Part of a large impact melt clast is visible in the lower left of the image. Some of the more prominent clasts are indicated by dashed outlines. …more
The team set out to determine when and how the crustal dichotomy formed.

Based on new radioisotopic measurements and in conjunction with other published data, the team determined that all the rocks that eventually were incorporated into the NWA 7034 breccia were emplaced about 4.4 billion years ago in the "source terrain" (the crustal source region that the different breccia components are derived from). The results show that this terrain was subject to prolonged metamorphism associated with a large plume-fed volcanic center from ~1.7 to 1.3 billion years ago. The areal extents of large, plume-fed volcanic centers on Mars are thousands of square kilometers, and the source terrain was likely comparable in size. Finally, they showed the rock was brought together ~200 million years ago or more recently. When viewed together, the data from NWA 7034 demonstrated that large volcanic terrains survived within a few km of the Martian surface since >4400 million years ago. This indicates that the dichotomy formed prior to 4.4 billion years ago, as near surface rocks would have been buried or destroyed by the dichotomy-forming event.

 

"This multi-disciplinary study, combining both traditional and innovative geochemical techniques has provided us with some exciting new insights into the timings of major processes that shaped young Mars," said Caroline Smith, head of Earth Sciences Collections, principal curator of meteorites at the Natural History Museum and another author on the paper.

This team's results have important implications for our understanding of when and how one of the oldest, and most distinctive, global geologic features on Mars was formed.

"This study demonstrates that multiple radioisotopic dating systems that are reset by different metamorphic processes can be used to tease out the thermal history of a sample over billions of years," Cassata said.

[/url]Explore further: Meteorites reveal story of Martian climate

More information: "Chronology of martian breccia NWA 7034 and the formation of the martian crustal dichotomy" Science Advances (2018). advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/5/eaap8306


Journal reference: Science Advances
Provided by: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory


Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-05-ancient-me...y.html#jCp


"...to the Mars that we know to have enormous volcanoes, vast canyon systems, and water channels, to a Mars that now many believe may harbor microbial life. It seems as if the cycle of science and speculation has gone almost full circle." -Carlotto

Mars rocks may harbor signs of life from four billion years ago
May 25, 2018, University of Edinburgh


[Image: mars.png]
Credit: NASA
Iron-rich rocks near ancient lake sites on Mars could hold vital clues that show life once existed there, research suggests.



These rocks—which formed in lake beds—are the best place to seek fossil evidence of life from billions of years ago, researchers say.

A new study that sheds light on where fossils might be preserved could aid the search for traces of tiny creatures—known as microbes—on Mars, which it is thought may have supported primitive life forms around four billion years ago.

A team of scientists has determined that sedimentary rocks made of compacted mud or clay are the most likely to contain fossils. These rocks are rich in iron and a mineral called silica, which helps preserve fossils.

They formed during the Noachian and Hesperian Periods of Martian history between three and four billion years ago. At that time, the planet's surface was abundant in water, which could have supported life.

The rocks are much better preserved than those of the same age on Earth, researchers say. This is because Mars is not subject to plate tectonics—the movement of huge rocky slabs that form the crust of some planets—which over time can destroy rocks and fossils inside them.

The team reviewed studies of fossils on Earth and assessed the results of lab experiments replicating Martian conditions to identify the most promising sites on the planet to explore for traces of ancient life.

Their findings could help inform NASA's next rover mission to the Red Planet, which will focus on searching for evidence of past life. The US space agency's Mars 2020 rover will collect rock samples to be returned to Earth for analysis by a future mission.

A similar mission led by the European Space Agency is also planned in coming years.

The latest study of Mars rocks—led by a researcher from the University of Edinburgh—could aid in the selection of landing sites for both missions. It could also help to identify the best places to gather rock samples.

The study, published in Journal of Geophysical Research, also involved researchers at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Brown University, California Institute of Technology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Yale University in the US.

Dr. Sean McMahon, a Marie Sklodowska-Curie fellow in the University of Edinburgh's School of Physics and Astronomy, said: "There are many interesting rock and mineral outcrops on Mars where we would like to search for fossils, but since we can't send rovers to all of them we have tried to prioritise the most promising deposits based on the best available information."

[Image: 1x1.gif] Explore further: Scientists use Dorset, UK, as model to help find traces of life on Mars

More information: S. McMahon et al. A Field Guide to Finding Fossils on Mars, Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets (2018). DOI: 10.1029/2017JE005478


Journal reference: Journal of Geophysical Research [Image: img-dot.gif] [Image: img-dot.gif]
Provided by: University of Edinburgh


Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-05-mars-harbo...s.html#jCp

If mars had Life...all things considered.
It would be Quantum. Arrow 
Quantum = all things considered.

Quantum effects observed in photosynthesis
May 21, 2018, University of Groningen


[Image: quantumeffec.jpg]
The figure shows the photosynthetic complex of light-harvesting green sulfur bacteria the green and yellow circles highlight the two molecules simultaneously excited. Credit: dr. Thomas la Cour Jansen/University of Groningen
Molecules that are involved in photosynthesis exhibit the same quantum effects as non-living matter, concludes an international team of scientists including University of Groningen theoretical physicist Thomas la Cour Jansen. This is the first time that quantum mechanical behavior was proven to exist in biological systems that are involved in photosynthesis. The interpretation of these quantum effects in photosynthesis may help in the development of nature-inspired light-harvesting devices. The results were published in Nature Chemistry on 21 May.



For several years now, there has been a debate about quantum effects in biological systems. The basic idea is that electrons in can be in two states at once, until they are observed. This may be compared to the thought experiment known as Schrödinger's Cat. The cat is locked in a box with a vial of a toxic substance. If the cap of the vial is locked with a quantum system, it may simultaneously be open or closed, so the cat is in a mixture of the states "dead" and "alive," until we open the box and observe the system. This is precisely the apparent behavior of electrons.

Vibrations

In earlier research, scientists had already found signals suggesting that light-harvesting molecules in bacteria may be excited into two states simultaneously. In itself this proved the involvement of quantum mechanical effects, however in those experiments, that excited state supposedly lasted more than 1 picosecond (0.000 000 000 001 second). This is much longer than one would expect on the basis of quantum mechanical theory.

Jansen and his colleagues show in their publication that this earlier observation is wrong. "We have shown that the quantum effects they reported were simply regular vibrations of the molecules." Therefore, the team continued the search. "We wondered if we might be able to observe that Schrödinger cat situation."

Superposition

They used different polarizations of light to perform measurements in light-harvesting green sulfur bacteria. The bacteria have a photosynthetic complex, made up of seven light sensitive molecules. A photon will excite two of those molecules, but the energy is superimposed on both. So just like the cat is dead or alive, one or the other molecule is excited by the photon. "In the case of such a superposition, spectroscopy should show a specific oscillating signal," explains Jansen. "And that is indeed what we saw. Furthermore, we found quantum effects that lasted precisely as long as one would expect based on theory and proved that these belong to energy superimposed on two molecules simultaneously." Jansen concludes that biological systems exhibit the same quantum effects as non-biological systems.

The observation techniques developed for this research project may be applied to different systems, both biological and non-biological. Jansen is happy with the results. "This is an interesting observation for anyone who is interested in the fascinating world of quantum mechanics. Moreover, the results may play a role in the development of new systems, such as the storage of solar energy or the development of quantum computers."

 Explore further: Purple bacteria shine path to super-efficient light harvesting

More information: Erling Thyrhaug et al, Identification and characterization of diverse coherences in the Fenna–Matthews–Olson complex, Nature Chemistry (2018). DOI: 10.1038/s41557-018-0060-5


Journal reference: Nature Chemistry
Provided by: [url=https://phys.org/partners/university-of-groningen/]University of Groningen


Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-05-quantum-ef...s.html#jCp
Along the vines of the Vineyard.
With a forked tongue the snake singsss...
Reply
(05-24-2018, 03:47 AM)Vianova Wrote: ...
That is fun and interesting, and even compelling.
Arrow
So if any of the above are close enough to 33.3 in your estimation,
that is certainly within the probable and acceptable concepts of most viewers.
And Carlotto himself,
may not argue the differential in the above 33.225 - or - 33.25 degree angles presented,
to his  33.3 degree angle.

I see a difference from my perspective.
A 33.25 degree angle,
is 
0.05 degrees short

subtract that from the inverse Phi angle {which is closely nearby in value}

arctangent  0.618033989 {inverse phi}  =  31.71747442 degrees

now subtract 0.05 degrees  =  31.66747442  degrees
and
that angle has this tangent --->  0.616828646 <---> compare to inverse phi -- 0.618033989

Nonono

Not even close.
That is what concerns me from a purist and precision perspective on the whole matter.


...
Ortho-wrecked-if-phi ?
All things considered:
While you move the goalpost...

Quote: Because of changes in the location of the Martian poles over time, Tom Van Flandern has argued that the complex was at one time situated at or near the equator and oriented in a nearly east-west direction. But I have found two other sites that have an alignment similar to the Cydonian site which contain pyramidal structures with southern faces that are oriented exactly due south (to within measurement error). This suggests a different reason for the alignment. -Carlotto

Vic:
"So if any of the above are close enough to 33.3 in your estimation,

that is certainly within the probable and acceptable concepts of most viewers.
And Carlotto himself,
may not argue the differential"
[Image: fig_00493_1e.png]

"subtract that from the inverse Phi angle {which is closely nearby in value}" -vianova
purist is as jurist was.
On Mars at all ma'at @ that
[Image: cydoniaAnimation_t_.gif]
The man from the west sees ~33.3
The man from the east knows itz none in the least a debate.
Not even close is as same differential was.

Effect of atmospheric refraction on the times of sunrise and sunset.
http://www.hko.gov.hk/m/article_e.htm?title=ele_00493
Along the vines of the Vineyard.
With a forked tongue the snake singsss...
Reply
This is insightful:

Well,I guess you can only move the goalpost so far... we ain't talkin' bout the dinosaur-face on mars now.


Quote:The mass of evidence supports the hypothesis that most species, be it a bird or a moth or a fish, like modern humans, arose recently and have not had time to develop a lot of genetic diversity. The 0.1% average genetic diversity within humanity today corresponds to the divergence of modern humans as a distinct species about 100,000 – 200,000 years ago – not very long in evolutionary terms. The same is likely true of over 90% of species on Earth today.

Compare: summer solstice alignment:33,000, 120,000, 160,000, 200,000, 330,000,

390,000, and 450,000 years B.P.(figure 73).


Hominid  Sheep Feline


Quote: Wrote: Wrote:The researchers report that they found over 13,000 genes that were similar through all of the species included in the study. They also found that the cats all diverged from a single ancestor approximately 4.6 million years ago—one that was apparently most like the modern leopard. The team also found that all of the species populations have also declined over the past 300,000 years, which means lower genetic diversity.

[Image: catbox5.jpg]Within Last~5 million years

Now we have an ancient Date Datum to begin with...
Tempus Fugit.

That leaves The Hominid factor.
Full circle... 

The 0.1% average genetic diversity within humanity today corresponds to the divergence of modern humans as a distinct species about 100,000 – 200,000 years ago – not very long in evolutionary terms. The same is likely true of over 90% of species on Earth today.

https://popular-archaeology.com/article/...l-kingdom/


I have entirely encapsulated your last few posts with metaphorical and evolutionary bookends.

~33.3 degrees on each side.



Quote:Well,I guess you can only move the goalpost so far... we ain't talkin' bout the dinosaur-face on mars now.
You left out the 5% Elipse every .4 million years.

Ecliptic [Image: sheep.gif]  Eliptic
if we use the average of the orientations of the Face,

Fort,Starfish Pyramid,Rounded Formation and Mounds(33.3* north of east)


we get not one but eight dates within the last half-million years satisfying the

summer solstice alignment:33,000, 120,000, 160,000, 200,000, 330,000,
390,000, and 450,000 years B.P.(figure 73).


https://books.google.ca/books?id=srxWAgA...rs&f=false

(dates within the last half-million years ) [Image: arrow.png]

Scientists have for decades posited that Earth's orbit around the sun goes from nearly circular to about 5 percent elliptical, and back again every 405,000 years.
Along the vines of the Vineyard.
With a forked tongue the snake singsss...
Reply
Vic:
...

That is fun and interesting, and even compelling.
Your number 23.439281 degrees is a current mean obliquity value with limitations,
and does not represent the long term average from what I can see.

Arrow needs a l'il update: Space Math http://spacemath.gsfc.nasa.gov

We ain't talkin' bout the dinosaur face on mars now.

Quote:Earth’s Rotation Changes and the Length of the Day
[Image: if-the-curiosity-rover-played-happy-birt...lation.jpg]
Period Age
(years)
Days per
year
Hours per
day
Current 0 365
Upper Cretaceous 70 million 370
Upper Triassic 220 million 372
Pennsylvanian 290 million 383
Mississippian 340 million 398
Upper Devonian 380 million 399
Middle Devonian 395 million 405
Lower Devonian 410 million 410
Upper Silurian 420 million 400
Middle Silurian 430 million 413
Lower Silurian 440 million 421
Upper Ordovician 450 million 414
Middle Cambrian 510 million 424
Ediacarin 600 million 417
Cryogenian 900 million 486

We learn that an 'Earth Day' is 24 hours long, and that more precisely it is
23 hours 56 minutes and 4 seconds long. But this hasn't always been the case.
Detailed studies of fossil shells, and the banded deposits in certain sandstones,
reveal a much different length of day in past eras! These bands in sedimentation
and shell-growth follow the lunar month and have individual bands representing
the number of days in a lunar month. By counting the number of bands,
geologists can work out the number of days in a year, and from this the number of
hours in a day when the shell was grown, or the deposits put down. The table
above shows the results of one of these studies.
Problem 1 - Complete the table by calculating the number of hours in a day
during the various geological eras. It is assumed that Earth orbits the sun at a
fixed orbital period, based on astronomical models that support this assumption.
Problem 2 - Plot the number of hours lost compared to the modern '24 hours'
value, versus the number of years before the current era.
Problem 3 - By finding the slope of a straight line through the points can you
estimate by how much the length of the day has increased in seconds per
century?
Space Math http://spacemath.gsfc.nasa.gov
Problem 1 - Answer; See table above. Example for last entry: 486 days implies 24
hours x (365/486) = 18.0 hours in a day.
Problem 2 - Answer; See figure below
Problem 3 - Answer: From the line indicated in the figure below, the slope of this line
is m = (y2 - y1 )/ (x2 - x1) = 6 hours / 900 million years or 0.0067 hours/million years.
Since there are 3,600 seconds/ hour and 10,000 centuries in 1 million years (Myr), this
unit conversion yields 0.0067 hr/Myr x (3600 sec/hr) x (1 Myr / 10,000 centuries) =
0.0024 seconds/century. This is normally cited as 2.4 milliseconds per century.
Period Age
(years)
Days per
year
Hours per
day
Current 0 365 24.0
Upper Cretaceous 70 million 370 23.7
Upper Triassic 220 million 372 23.5
Pennsylvanian 290 million 383 22.9
Mississippian 340 million 398 22.0
Upper Devonian 380 million 399 22.0
Middle Devonian 395 million 405 21.6
Lower Devonian 410 million 410 21.4
Upper Silurian 420 million 400 21.9
Middle Silurian 430 million 413 21.2
Lower Silurian 440 million 421 20.8
Upper Ordovician 450 million 414 21.2
Middle Cambrian 510 million 424 20.7
Ediacarin 600 million 417 21.0
Cryogenian 900 million 486 18.0
Answer Key 43
Space Math http://spacemath.gsfc.nasa.gov


Quote:Updated Gnosis June 4, 2018
With the approach, they could reliably assess from layers of rock in the geologic record variations in the direction of the axis of rotation of Earth and the shape of its orbit both in more recent time and in deep time, while also addressing uncertainty. They were also able to determine the length of day and the distance between the Earth and the moon.
"In the future, we want to expand the work into different intervals of geologic time," says Malinverno.
The study complements two other recent studies that rely on the rock record and Milankovitch cycles to better understand Earth's history and behavior.


A research team at Lamont-Doherty used a rock formation in Arizona to confirm the remarkable regularity of Earth's orbital fluctuations from nearly circular to more elliptical on a 405,000 year cycle. And another team in New Zealand, in collaboration with Meyers, looked at how changes in Earth's orbit and rotation on its axis have affected cycles of evolution and extinction of marine organisms called graptoloids, going back 450 million years.

"The geologic record is an astronomical observatory for the early solar system," says Meyers. "We are looking at its pulsing rhythm, preserved in the rock and the history of life."


Thank the moon for Earth's lengthening day
June 4, 2018, University of Wisconsin-Madison

[Image: 1-earthmoon.jpg]
Credit: CC0 Public Domain

For anyone who has ever wished there were more hours in the day, geoscientists have some good news: Days on Earth are getting longer.

A new study that reconstructs the deep history of our planet's relationship to the moon shows that 1.4 billion years ago, a day on Earth lasted just over 18 hours. This is at least in part because the moon was closer and changed the way the Earth spun around its axis.
"As the moon moves away, the Earth is like a spinning figure skater who slows down as they stretch their arms out," explains Stephen Meyers, professor of geoscience at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and co-author of the study published this week [June 4, 2018] in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
It describes a tool, a statistical method, that links astronomical theory with geological observation (called astrochronology) to look back on Earth's geologic past, reconstruct the history of the solar system and understand ancient climate change as captured in the rock record.
"One of our ambitions was to use astrochronology to tell time in the most distant past, to develop very ancient geological time scales," Meyers says. "We want to be able to study rocks that are billions of years old in a way that is comparable to how we study modern geologic processes."
Earth's movement in space is influenced by the other astronomical bodies that exert force on it, like other planets and the moon. This helps determine variations in the Earth's rotation around and wobble on its axis, and in the orbit the Earth traces around the sun.
These variations are collectively known as Milankovitch cycles and they determine where sunlight is distributed on Earth, which also means they determine Earth's climate rhythms. Scientists like Meyers have observed this climate rhythm in the rock record, spanning hundreds of millions of years.
But going back further, on the scale of billions of years, has proved challenging because typical geologic means, like radioisotope dating, do not provide the precision needed to identify the cycles. It's also complicated by lack of knowledge of the history of the moon, and by what is known as solar system chaos, a theory posed by Parisian astronomer Jacques Laskar in 1989.

The solar system has many moving parts, including the other planets orbiting the sun. Small, initial variations in these moving parts can propagate into big changes millions of years later; this is solar system chaos, and trying to account for it can be like trying to trace the butterfly effect in reverse.
Last year, Meyers and colleagues cracked the code on the chaotic solar system in a study of sediments from a 90 million-year-old rock formation that captured Earth's climate cycles. Still, the further back in the rock record he and others have tried to go, the less reliable their conclusions.
For instance, the moon is currently moving away from the Earth at a rate of 3.82 centimeters per year. Using this present day rate, scientists extrapolating back through time calculated that "beyond about 1.5 billion years ago, the moon would have been close enough that its gravitational interactions with the Earth would have ripped the moon apart," Meyers explains. Yet, we know the moon is 4.5 billion years old.
So, Meyers sought a way to better account for just what our planetary neighbors were doing billions of years ago in order to understand the effect they had on Earth and its Milankovitch cycles. This was the problem he brought with him to a talk he gave at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory while on sabbatical in 2016.
In the audience that day was Alberto Malinverno, Lamont Research Professor at Columbia. "I was sitting there when I said to myself, 'I think I know how to do it! Let's get together!'" says Malinverno, the other study co-author. "It was exciting because, in a way, you dream of this all the time; I was a solution looking for a problem."
The two teamed up to combine a statistical method that Meyers developed in 2015 to deal with uncertainty across time—called TimeOpt—with astronomical theory, geologic data and a sophisticated statistical approach called Bayesian inversion that allows the researchers to get a better handle on the uncertainty of a study system.
They then tested the approach, which they call TimeOptMCMC, on two stratigraphic rock layers: the 1.4 billion-year-old Xiamaling Formation from Northern China and a 55 million-year-old record from Walvis Ridge, in the southern Atlantic Ocean.
With the approach, they could reliably assess from layers of rock in the geologic record variations in the direction of the axis of rotation of Earth and the shape of its orbit both in more recent time and in deep time, while also addressing uncertainty. They were also able to determine the length of day and the distance between the Earth and the moon.
"In the future, we want to expand the work into different intervals of geologic time," says Malinverno.
The study complements two other recent studies that rely on the rock record and Milankovitch cycles to better understand Earth's history and behavior.


A research team at Lamont-Doherty used a rock formation in Arizona to confirm the remarkable regularity of Earth's orbital fluctuations from nearly circular to more elliptical on a 405,000 year cycle. And another team in New Zealand, in collaboration with Meyers, looked at how changes in Earth's orbit and rotation on its axis have affected cycles of evolution and extinction of marine organisms called graptoloids, going back 450 million years.

"The geologic record is an astronomical observatory for the early solar system," says Meyers. "We are looking at its pulsing rhythm, preserved in the rock and the history of life."



[Image: 1x1.gif] Explore further: From rocks in Colorado, evidence of a 'chaotic solar system'
More information: Stephen R. Meyers el al., "Proterozoic Milankovitch cycles and the history of the solar system," PNAS (2018). www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1717689115

Journal reference: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences [Image: img-dot.gif] [Image: img-dot.gif]
Provided by: University of Wisconsin-Madison
Along the vines of the Vineyard.
With a forked tongue the snake singsss...
Reply
Mform getz Informed:Arrow

[Image: cydoniaAnimation_t_.gif]Mornin' neve

Reply to thread: Ancient Civilisation on Mars my discoveries

Quote:These models show we can't just think about a population evolving on its own. We have to think about our planets and civilizations co-evolving."


Alien apocalypse: Can any civilization make it through climate change?
June 5, 2018, University of Rochester


[Image: alienapocaly.jpg]
A case study of the inhabitants of Easter Island served in part as the basis for a mathematical model showing the ways a technologically advanced population and its planet might develop or collapse together. Rochester astrophysicist Adam Frank and his collaborators created their model to illustrate how civilization-planet systems co-evolve. Credit: University of Rochester illustration / Michael Osadciw
In the face of climate change, deforestation and biodiversity loss, creating a sustainable version of civilization is one of humanity's most urgent tasks. But when confronting this immense challenge, we rarely ask what may be the most pressing question of all: How do we know if sustainability is even possible? Astronomers have inventoried a sizable share of the universe's stars, galaxies, comets, and black holes. But are planets with sustainable civilizations also something the universe contains? Or does every civilization that may have arisen in the cosmos last only a few centuries before it falls to the climate change it triggers?



Astrophysicist Adam Frank, a professor of physics and astronomy at the University of Rochester, is part of a group of researchers who have taken the first steps to answer these questions. In a new study published in the journal Astrobiology, the group—including Frank, Jonathan Carroll-Nellenback, a senior computational scientist at Rochester, Martina Alberti of the University of Washington, and Axel Kleidon of the Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry—addresses these questions from an "astrobiological" perspective.

"Astrobiology is the study of life and its possibilities in a planetary context," says Frank, who is also author of the new book Light of the Stars: Alien Worlds and the Fate of the Earth, which draws on this study. "That includes 'exo-civilizations' or what we usually call aliens."

Frank and his colleagues point out that discussions about climate change rarely take place in this broader context—one that considers the probability that this is not the first time in cosmic history that a planet and its biosphere have evolved into something like what we've created on Earth. "If we're not the universe's first civilization," Frank says, "that means there are likely to be rules for how the fate of a young civilization like our own progresses."

As a civilization's population grows, it uses more and more of its planet's resources. By consuming the planet's resources, the civilization changes the planet's conditions. In short, civilizations and planets don't evolve separately from one another; they evolve interdependently, and the fate of our own civilization depends on how we use Earth's resources.

In order to illustrate how civilization-planet systems co-evolve, Frank and his collaborators developed a mathematical model to show ways in which a technologically advanced population and its planet might develop together. By thinking of civilizations and planets—even alien ones—as a whole, researchers can better predict what might be required for the human project of civilization to survive.

 

"The point is to recognize that driving climate change may be something generic," Frank says. "The laws of physics demand that any young population, building an energy-intensive civilization like ours, is going to have feedback on its planet. Seeing climate change in this cosmic context may give us better insight into what's happening to us now and how to deal with it."

[Image: 1-alienapocaly.jpg]
Four scenarios for the fate of civilizations and their planets, based on mathematical models developed by Adam Frank and his collaborators. The black line shows the trajectory of the civilization's population and the red line shows the …more
Using their mathematical model, the researchers found four potential scenarios that might occur in a civilization-planet system:

  1. Die-off: The population and the planet's state (indicated by something like its average temperature) rise very quickly. Eventually, the population peaks and then declines rapidly as the rising planetary temperature makes conditions harder to survive. A steady population level is achieved, but it's only a fraction of the peak population. "Imagine if 7 out of 10 people you knew died quickly," Frank says. "It's not clear a complex technological civilization could survive that kind of change."
  2. Sustainability: The population and the temperature rise but eventually both come to steady values without any catastrophic effects. This scenario occurs in the models when the population recognizes it is having a negative effect on the planet and switches from using high-impact resources, such as oil, to low-impact resources, such as solar energy.
  3. Collapse without resource change: The population and temperature both rise rapidly until the population reaches a peak and drops precipitously. In these models civilization collapses, though it is not clear if the species itself completely dies outs.
  4. Collapse with resource change: The population and the temperature rise, but the population recognizes it is causing a problem and switches from high-impact resources to low-impact resources. Things appear to level off for a while, but the response turns out to have come too late, and the population collapses anyway.
"The last scenario is the most frightening," Frank says. "Even if you did the right thing, if you waited too long, you could still have your population collapse."

The researchers created their models based in part on case studies of extinct civilizations, such as the inhabitants of Easter Island. People began colonizing the island between 400 and 700 AD and grew to a peak population of 10,000 sometime between 1200 and 1500 AD. By the 18th century, however, the inhabitants had depleted their resources and the population dropped drastically to about 2,000 people.

The Easter Island population die-off relates to a concept called carrying capacity, or the maximum number of species an environment can support. The earth's response to civilization building is what climate change is really all about, Frank says. "If you go through really strong climate change, then your carrying capacity may drop, because, for example, large-scale agriculture might be strongly disrupted. Imagine if climate change caused rain to stop falling in the Midwest. We wouldn't be able to grow food, and our population would diminish."

Right now researchers can't definitively predict the fate of the earth. The next steps will be to use more detailed models of the ways planets might behave when a civilization consumes energy of any form to grow. In the meantime, Frank issues a sober warning.

"If you change the earth's climate enough, you might not be able to change it back," he says. "Even if you backed off and started to use solar or other less impactful resources, it could be too late, because the planet has already been changing. These models show we can't just think about a population evolving on its own. We have to think about our planets and civilizations co-evolving."

[Image: 1x1.gif] Explore further: We think we're the first advanced earthlings—but how do we really know?

More information: A. Frank et al, The Anthropocene Generalized: Evolution of Exo-Civilizations and Their Planetary Feedback, Astrobiology (2018). DOI: 10.1089/ast.2017.1671


Journal reference: Astrobiology [Image: img-dot.gif] [Image: img-dot.gif]
Provided by: University of Rochester


Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-06-alien-apoc...e.html#jCp



Doh

Recall:
We think we're the first advanced earthlings—but how do we really know?
April 16, 2018, University of Rochester


[Image: wethinkweret.jpg]
How do we really know there weren't previous industrial civilizations on Earth that rose and fell long before human beings appeared? That's the question posed in a scientific thought experiment by University of Rochester astrophysicist Adam Frank. Credit: University of Rochester illustration/Michael Osadciw
Imagine if, many millions of years ago, dinosaurs drove cars through cities of mile-high buildings. A preposterous idea, right? Over the course of tens of millions of years, however, all of the direct evidence of a civilization—its artifacts and remains—gets ground to dust. How do we really know, then, that there weren't previous industrial civilizations on Earth that rose and fell long before human beings appeared?


Arrow  Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-04-advanced-e...t.html#jCp
Along the vines of the Vineyard.
With a forked tongue the snake singsss...
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)