Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

chronology

Expand Messages
  • aumsparky@earthlink.net
    The oldest known giant sequoia based on ring count is 3,500 years old. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequoiadendron The bristlecone pines are a small group
    Message 1 of 34 , Apr 30 11:05 AM
    • 0 Attachment
       
      'The oldest known giant sequoia based on ring count is 3,500 years old.'
       

      'The bristlecone pines are a small group of pine trees (Family Pinaceae, genus Pinus, subsection Balfourianae) that are thought to reach an age far greater than that of any other single living organism known, up to nearly 5,000 years.'

       
         its uncertain how accurate is the counting of tree rings.  it may not reflect an annual event, but shows wet-dry patterns, with some years no ring, and others two. 
         such inaccuracy has been pointed out on the count of ice core samples in greenland, instead of annual, some rings were deposited several in one day, depending on snowfall. 
         the old tree species, being on the west coast, would have been less affected by a great tsunami generated in the caribbean sea.  the sierra nevada mts may have lessened the impact.  being near the pacific coast, they would have been exposed to the more frequent tsunamis along the ring of fire. 
         the reason they fail to reseed themselves, may be the loss of mineral soil, due to those frequent tsunamis.  the needed wild fires likely continued unabated until recent times. 
         thus, they may not be useful, in helping us date the great tsunami that killed-off most of the megafauna.  it so happens, that they dont contradict a dating of circa 3000 bce, for the great tsunami.  a tsunami from the pacific may have washed the mineral soil inland, encouraging tree growth in that direction.  where a tsunami from the southeast, breaking over the mts, would have washed the mineral soil into the ocean. 
         we must look to the ancient high cultures of central america and south america, for clues on dating the mega-disaster event, that disrupted them, and killed the megafauna.  this won't be easy, until our lads abandon their preconceived notions, and begin to practise true science with an open mind.  its better for them to say the date is unknown, until they have compelling evidence.  too often they put forth a guess, then defend it, as though their reputation rested upon it.  then they fail to investigate solid evidence to the contrary.  a true scientist should be willing to change his mind, and update his conclusions.  the generations that follow, will respect them, instead of mock and deride them. 
       
      mike
       
       
    • aumsparky@earthlink.net
      The oldest known giant sequoia based on ring count is 3,500 years old. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequoiadendron The bristlecone pines are a small group
      Message 34 of 34 , Apr 30 11:05 AM
      • 0 Attachment
         
        'The oldest known giant sequoia based on ring count is 3,500 years old.'
         

        'The bristlecone pines are a small group of pine trees (Family Pinaceae, genus Pinus, subsection Balfourianae) that are thought to reach an age far greater than that of any other single living organism known, up to nearly 5,000 years.'

         
           its uncertain how accurate is the counting of tree rings.  it may not reflect an annual event, but shows wet-dry patterns, with some years no ring, and others two. 
           such inaccuracy has been pointed out on the count of ice core samples in greenland, instead of annual, some rings were deposited several in one day, depending on snowfall. 
           the old tree species, being on the west coast, would have been less affected by a great tsunami generated in the caribbean sea.  the sierra nevada mts may have lessened the impact.  being near the pacific coast, they would have been exposed to the more frequent tsunamis along the ring of fire. 
           the reason they fail to reseed themselves, may be the loss of mineral soil, due to those frequent tsunamis.  the needed wild fires likely continued unabated until recent times. 
           thus, they may not be useful, in helping us date the great tsunami that killed-off most of the megafauna.  it so happens, that they dont contradict a dating of circa 3000 bce, for the great tsunami.  a tsunami from the pacific may have washed the mineral soil inland, encouraging tree growth in that direction.  where a tsunami from the southeast, breaking over the mts, would have washed the mineral soil into the ocean. 
           we must look to the ancient high cultures of central america and south america, for clues on dating the mega-disaster event, that disrupted them, and killed the megafauna.  this won't be easy, until our lads abandon their preconceived notions, and begin to practise true science with an open mind.  its better for them to say the date is unknown, until they have compelling evidence.  too often they put forth a guess, then defend it, as though their reputation rested upon it.  then they fail to investigate solid evidence to the contrary.  a true scientist should be willing to change his mind, and update his conclusions.  the generations that follow, will respect them, instead of mock and deride them. 
         
        mike
         
         
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.