Green Baron

Yeah, that really does not make that much sense science wise. They'll never achieve the energies even of the LHC. Better join LHC/FCC !

You probably already found out that It is listed in the IAF program for the 2012 congress as a lecture: http://www.iafastro.org/events/iac/iac-2012/ Maybe it wasn't published in written form ? Edit: found an abstract: http://iafastro.directory/iac/paper/id/12805/summary/ Maybe you can find out more via the institute where the guy works (MAI) ... ? Are you sure it belongs in this thread ? Probably, yes :-)

Next generation particle accelerator/collider proposal: http://fcc-cdr.web.cern.ch/

"Ptolemy's model will have a revival, you'll soon see !" - a lady, in a pub, towards us, while a friend was talking with me about one of the probes to the gas giants, i think it was Cassini. I immediately placed a bulk order to get over it.

Had they planned it, they would have missed ... 2267

Well, ok then, i'm wrong ... :-) But what's the problem then ?

Depends on country regulations. If i am not mistaken, only a few countries allow a second citizenship and only in special cases. But the passport is not necessarily a sign of a citizenship. A European can have a passport of one country and live and pay taxes in another. Anyway, i have no idea about the case above ... i doubt the guy has obtained all of the papers lawfully ...

2243 ( am in a hurry, so no pic)

Supporting Chinese cotton on the Moon: (meeow)

You have my sympathy for using a small "family member".

If people actually think they do better than scientists when they argue that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence then it is pointless to argue with reason against this refusal. I had hoped that the somebody might take an insight from this with him/her at home. Quitting the 3rd time, and now for real. I am out, think what you want, and have a nice day :-) Really !

You have read it ? Yes, there is nothing about war in it and in all of the other serious works on the paleolithic. Does that ring a bell ? But a whole lot on an abundance of hunting game which contradicts the hypothesis that these people were hunger-driven. And it documents like much of the work before and after it that these people have wandered huge distances.

Science knows much moar than that. Here you go: The outcome of a symposium, written by real scientists from paleao-anthropology and archeology, quaternary and geoscience: https://www.amazon.com/Hunters-Golden-Age-Palaeolithic-Eurasia/dp/9073368154 And this is just one example. The view has been expanded on other parts of the upper pal, especially the Magdalenian until then because of the extraordinary find situation and environmental reconstructions we have now. I am not kidding you guys, but you are scoffing at me. Let go your prejudice and you will be free ;-) Ok, quitting the second time.

That is nonsense. You have nothing than prejudice to support that view. I have paleoanthropology and the find situation to support what is taught in universities these days. No source for that. Pinter has been accused by scientists from anthropology to make up his numbers to support his claims (Wikipedia). This may locally and in certain times be true (example central Europe from the late medieval to today), but in other times or places it is grossly off reality. It is important to understand that a find situation must be set in relation to the context to judge what an apparent injury can be attributed to. I suppose the authors wanted to transport a message, not historical exactness. I also suppose they wrote "scientifically accurate" on it ;-), which is usually the case these days. But i do not know the book as i usually stay away from pop science if i can. Sarcasm aside, as soon as you come out with an example for paleolithic violence, we can talk. Until then: no war until the neolithic. This is all pointless as long as prejudice and pop science overlay the laid out situation. I quit :-)

that is an opinion and not reflected in findings from pre civ times. humans are peaceful and cooperative by nature. Chimpanzees have magnitudes higher violence rates than humans. comparative study from 2006, Wrangham. am on mobile, sorry.

Source ? They can be aggressive, but every time ? Surely an exaggeration (provoke, provoke ...). Yes, there is. Behaviour is not set in stone, that mindset is existentialism, which is rather a philosophy or belief. Behaviour can change fundamentally from generation to generation. Wild Guinea pigs for example are extremely aggressive with a strong hierarchy among males and females. The domesticated or even tamed forms have lost nearly all of the aggressiveness. All domesticated animals have changed behaviour, many tamed ones do so during a liefetime, and so can humans simply because our nervous system allows us to. And, btw., humans are no chimpanzees, analogies do not work without an evidence, but there is enough evidence to the contrary, for example that co-operation makes us accomplish big things and controversy does only destroy or at least slows an otherwise positive development (argh, politics, sorry). Anyway, you cannot set your mindset as a measurement for that of former societies, or even other individuals. A common error, committed in many books subtitled "scientific" ;-) Bring on an an example for paleolithic violence, then we can talk. I do not exclude it categorically, though i admit that the consciousness that there may have been an easier way somehow comforts me. Anyway, there is no way back :-) Evidence, mate, evidence. Guessing does not count ;-) One can actually study paleoanthropology, then there'd be less need for imagination (still some). Murder is a legal concept from our time and btw. depends on local jurisdiction. We have no evidence for a murder from the paleolithic. I do not exclude that, but it would be extremely rare. Analogies (sic !) from recent hunter/gatherer groups suggest more like banning or a ritual castigation in case of severe failures, because the group may still need the one who strayed. But this is actually documented work, not imagination ;-) The first part is okay, the second has too much modern day interpretation in it. The ownership of land is not necessarily a concept from hunter / gatherers, at least not in sparcely populated areas, in contrary, possession is strictly frowned up. What someone brings to the fire belongs to all. This effectively prevents most upcoming controversies, and it apparently did so for 10,000s to 100,000s of years. This is anthropological work from the early/mid 20th century. It was so partially in central Africa in the late 19th/early 20th century (i am sure i can fnd documented cases but am too lazy to search), because westerners where pressing in and the available hunting grounds where getting narrow. And even work among circumpolar peoples suggest so. Unfortunately we do not know the mindset of paleolithic people in the cold steppe. I know, this is difficult to grasp for people who firmly believe in property, the stock market and the roles of men & women. It takes a few years of training on the subject and discussions with others until it settles in the mind :-) ------------------ So, it apparently boils down to "i believe they beat each up because chimps do" and "i do not think so because no evidence, but hints to the contrary from anthropolgy and different mindset". It seems like you have chosen and so have i. Peace on Earth, at least for another while :-)

Bring on an evidence for war in the paleolithic ! >400 Neandertals, i do not know how many AMH from the upper pal from ~40.000 before now until now, probably slightly more. You have absolutely no evidence, you are just guessing. I can tell you from several findings that your athlete will have a hard time. I even doubt that his/her bones will last as long as those from the hunter, because they are less stable and robust generally today in humans than they were at those times. I do not know. Nobody knows, and nobody can answer such a question. They did live there, moving around, sometimes meeting with other groups, probably exchanging stories, genes, nice pendants, etc. You can carry on thinking that if you actually find an ensemble that somehow implies that people were having problems, underfed, sick, etc. A red cross in cave or so *rolleyes*

Only, neither do we have signs of excessive hunger at these times nor are there hints that the concept of group violence was "invented" yet. People do love to wander around, to look aver the next ridge and the next and so on. I did it in my youth and until ~5 years ago, including sailing the ocean and going on longer hikes of days. There is nothing wrong with the assumption that mere curiosity drove the people around. And yes, for us effete modern day people with a damaged immune system, we will not survive a single night at -25°C, some of us not even with thick clothes. But that is not comparable. A paleolithic hunter would probably win a quarrel against an athlete of today. Please do understand, we have no sign that the concept of competition between humans did apply before the neolithic. Maybe in rare unique cases, we can't exclude that, but until now we do not have a "smoking gun" other than probable hunting accidents. People just wandered, they did not ask "why", so why should we ?

Exactly. And we know about people traveling the rivers and lakes of central and eastern Europe in log-boats in the mesolithic (6-7.000bc), before the arrival of neolithic settlers. People probably would have done so earlier had there been suitable wood and trees. I'd not be surprised if a we one day find even earlier traces of boat use in the Mediterranean or north Africa. And China is catching up pretty fast in archeology. People at least in the late upper paleolithic were linked and traveled over huge distances without any direct need. We have mussels from med in central Germany for example, or a "horizon" of similar statuettes from Siberia to France in the Solutrean, suggesting at least a cultural link between groups around the last glacial maximum. People, neither individuals nor groups, apparently do not need a reason to go elsewhere.

Olive Kerman ?

I was actually serious with my statement that i need a reasonable argument on a factual basis in contrast to speculation and populism to carry on with the discussion. If you think that that is absurd then, yes, then you are just trolling. Anyway, there is no new insight in here for me.

Прия́тного аппети́та ! (German: Mahlzeit !, English ... hmm what do working class people say when they go for lunch ?) :-) You haven't marked that as a spoiler but i understand it is meant as a joke because - there is no paleolysis - the concept of a colony is not applicable - tourism neither - ocean crossings are very improbable, but cannot totally be excluded towards the late-/end-/epi-paleolysis - interest rates are much too low these days for a sustainable economy Wait, scrub that, it is too far off topic :-) Hey, i am just trying to be funny *kerbalwithfoolscap*

While i love this discussion, i prefer a factual basis as a foundation from which to start. A question "why" cannot be answered without speculation, but we can describe what we find, the material, hardware that makes a noise when dropped :-). Some interpretation and depiction does not harm, as long as we don't let our own cultural background narrow our view, which is frequently the case in popular publications, books etc. Anyway, we all apparently agree that a broad diet of meat, veggies, fruits, as fresh as possible, is the most healthy nutritional way for us. And with that, i quit for lunch :-)

Paleolithic lifestyle was stable for 100.000s of years. There was only little population growth, rather movement and coming and going. While a bottleneck might have happened (though that is unclear), usually humans where well integrated in the environment. That these people were "struggling" is a modern existentialists view, the being in the face of a harsh world, and temporarily a struggle may have happened, driving the groups for example out of stressed environments to warmer areas, but not generally. Human expansion in the paleolithic can rather be seen as being curiosity driven than by need. If. But that was apparently not the case in the European upper paleolithic. The areas where probably not all occupied. Population pressure is not a driving factor then (*). With the onset agriculture 10.000s of years of stability are lost. "Suddenly" there are periods of build-up and decline now, war over resources or world views and generally individuals have to struggle much more than before to earn a living, which is reflected in lore as well as in archaeological reality. Pressure drive people out of places and into others, only stopping when the technology must be adapted when new conditions demand so (ground, climate, forests). A late paleolithic hunter had much less work a day as a neolithic farmer (though those never saw each other). Irrigation depends greatly on a stable environment. People start to talk about the weather, and suddenly a year without rain causes hunger and population decline, or war over resources, because people reach a carrying capacity much faster. While it is true that "suddenly" more mouths can be filled, the group is much more vulnerable to changes than before. Signed and given :-) ------------- (*) Edit: or, which paleolithic or even mesolithic find situation makes you think of hunger and intertribal war ? And as a follow up question: which post paleo- or mesolithic find situation makes one think of hunger intertribal war ?

You would :-) But it is still modern knowledge and a requirement in many countries. There are a lot of resources around for the interested :-)