Green Baron

Ok, i think the adjustment is trivial ... :-)

Let's see (rounding): 150,000,000 km * 0.15 * 2 * PI * 4,000km width = 567,000,000,000 km² / 149,000,000 km² = 3,805.37. Your tape with radius 0,15 AU and width 4,000km has ~3,800 (threethousandeighthundred) times the surface of earth's landmass. Edit: miscalculation on first try (4pi instead of 2) :-)

THIRSTY telescope discovered traces of cold beverages ... Research institute invented the rotary current accumulator ... :-)

Me ? If i'd coil one up it'll probably go kerbal on first sight of a free electron :-) Old style communication via smoke signs ... Depends on the technology and what you mean with "strong". A quick search reveals numbers for the energy and power density.

This is necessary:

New observations challenge the model for the distribution of dark matter (lambda-cold dark matter model): http://science.sciencemag.org/content/359/6375/534 We may still be missing something in cosmology, but we don't need a new cosmology yet, so a commentary. The observed galaxy Centaurus A might just be a special case for the distribution of dark matter, and yet unobserved larger scale than galaxy-size dark matter distributions might influence the local signal. Or it could just be a "chance alignment" that was observed, not contradicting the overall model predictions.

Different inclinations ?

Got the list ready for a stack of wood. Will adjust the measurements depending on the profiles the carpenter has in stock. Are you guys in one or another H0 model railroad forum ?

Most dips were between 1 and 2.5%. Temperature changes are mentioned in the paper. Proposals from other papers include state changes like changes in the convection patterns or stellar radius. Possibilities are enough i'd think but i am only consuming the publications ...

"Tabby keeps on dipping, dipping ..." humdidum Evaluation of photometric data gained by the Las Cumbres network. https://arxiv.org/abs/1801.00732 tl:dr: either dust or processes in the stars photosphere. Next dipping season 2019 ? I find the latter interesting, as it is in line with the speculations about the other dipping stars. Or, in general words, processes in the energy budgets of the stars that we do not yet fully understand. Who would have thought ? :-)

So did it. H0 DC. I just cleared out 5 * 4m and sketched a table of 5 * 1.6m as a base plate. Will go to the carpenter on Monday to get the material. Just because i realised i am too old to skid across the floor on my knees. Oh, the 2. ... Sir Rod Steward in Zagreb ... how are things @Shpaget ?

Man, you have a robust notion of reality ...

Woodward concludes that this is NOT a Neandertal and opens up Homo rhodesiensis. Stop stealing other people's time ! This is page two, shot from my screen right now (hope that's not a cause for trouble): So, "no need", eh ? Yes, wanting need, it proves that you falsely claimed Woodward lumped rhodesiensis and neandertals. You lumped them them upthread. Care to enlighten us why ?

Post page two, that's where it is interesting !

You mess with me. Have you seen the link i posted ? Do you think i have not read it ? I can't paste it in here because i have only paid for private access. Woodward compares the skull and in the end opens up a new taxon. @Vanamonde: this guy is not playing nice ! But i would find it a shame if this thread would be closed just because of one person playing unfair ....

Kiss my .... sorry.

In contrary: "In general the brain case shape is much more ordinarily human than hat of the La Chapelle aux Saint Neandertal" etc. pp. "We therefore recognize in the Rhodesian cave man a new form which may be regarded as specifically distinct from Homo neandertalensis and may be appropriately named Homo rhodesiensis". From: https://www.nature.com/articles/108371a0 You aren't exactly sly with your claims, sir ;-)

Now, what ? Is this a defamation ? Are you saying that people over a course of 170 years repeatedly produced and still produce frauds ? Do you have a conception of how a modern academic excavation and its post-processing goes along ? Do you think Schmitz produced bone fragments that fit the the finds from 1856 ? This is ridiculous.

He doesn't even have a point or an argument chain were to hang up a critique. He is mostly destructive, negating and denying and evading and - which is not ok imo - falsely attributing words to people. This is all somewhat strange. A few days ago i have introduced myself to him via pm and asked who he is, but have not received an answer. Edit: but other things @PB666 writes are conclusive and even nice. I from time to time like posts from him :-)

If you mean Arthur Smith Woodward, he never did such a thing. He described Homo rhodesiensis. And he fell for the Piltdown fraud. A pity. One can (and many do) see a heidelbergensis in the Broken Hill skull. But even that is not a Neandertal. If you lump them together, what is your basis for doing so ? You are again and again putting words in other peoples mouths that they never said. Also i am missing a real point. Will it come ? Opportunities, opportunities ;-) I am not defending nobody, just pointing out facts everybody can read in works on science history. Oh, by the way, in his time, Fuhlrott was the only one who thought the Feldhofer Neandertal is from a different human "race" and much older than everything else concerning humans, "ante-diluvial". Schaaffhausen described the anatomic features. Revolutionary in his time. He (Fuhlrott) did not live up to see his opinion come true. The great Virchow, having a much greater influence being the most luminary anatomist of his time, always put the bones as pathological but modern human. We can, without exaggeration, see Schaffhausen and Fuhlrott as the founders of palaeoanthropology.

So far, you are conveniently ignoring 100s if not thousands of studies, papers, analyses, essays, opinions, .... ... and lumping Homo rhodesiensis and Neandertals. But lets see what the point will be :-)

You said: With regard to the he said/she said stuff . . . . . .what I will be able to demonstrate is the original wrong notions that were brought into the argument did not disappear, but in fact many of these notions persisted until it was shown that these notions were wrong. And what you will see is that only the subset that were proved wrong fade, but other wrong notions continue to persist even until recently. Archaeology did not release its biases easily, some of the changes were well fought over. My reply: You may do so, but do not put words in peoples mouth that they have not said. You have a patronizing tone that diminishes the work of others, and that is not ok imo. You repeatedly quote falsely and put forward false claims, only to evade if you were told not to do so. If they all were as wrong as possible, we are still standing on their shoulders and are relying on and greatly benefit from their work. You said: You don't quite get the point, you don't have the Marx brothers come in and do archaeology for 100 years and then say geeze now we are going to do the serious stuff. What you have to say in the paper is to start this is how the samples were manhandled (not bury that fact deep in the text) and these are the things we could and could not do. Critics need details, what was the nature of the preservative placed on the calvaria? Was any means taken to characterized the chert and other material in which the bone fragments were recovered (how disturbed were they after deposition). And of the things we could do this is how we avoided all the created risk. The null hypothesis is that the dating is indeterminate, in all circumstances its up to the authors to prove that in the mess that they have adequately cleaned the sample, the critics responsibility is to point this out if they haven't. I reply: This is a common place you lay out. Everyone is aware. All restrictions, uncertainties etc. are described and openly available for everyone to read. The big picture comes from carrying information together and is valid until it changes because of new discoveries. You said: I should also point out that at a certain point in the purification, because the dating is so close to the limit of Carbon-14, that each step needs to be conducted from CO2 (from ancient carbonates that are acid treated to release gas)) purging of buffers and then degassing CO2 purified such that the CO2 itself is tested for 14C and found to contain none. (IOW all gasses used need to be completely free of radioactivity, N-15, C-14 . . . .) I will deal with this problem later, it is not possible in all cases to get high count on the AMS dating. My reply: C-14 dating can go back to 50ky with reasonable confidence, in rare cases can be extended to 60/70ky. I am sure you can find a Wikipedia article on this. Limits, find circumstances, preparation etc. are described. The new dates were taken on recently found parts from the Feldhofer skeleton and confirm the old ones. Edit: if it was a single date then you were absolutely right with warning about the significance. As such, the new dating on freshly found bones adds to to former incomplete picture, giving more certainty to the formerly unsafe dating. Hope that settles the matter ;-) You said: Another point here I will make later, even if the researchers are extremely careful, a cave is not dead, over the life of a cave, animals will come and go, bats, cave arthropods, etc. In detail it needs to be certain with testing as excavation proceeds that the indicators of recent activity (mtDNA and other markers) have not accumulated in the soil. But in the case of Feldhofer I we are beyond that because the context was lost, so one has to assume for the sake of research that the sample was contaminated and then take the appropriate measures to remove that contamination. My reply: The clays were found 1997, i have been at the site. I myself doubt the DNA analysis because of i have a respect for ancient dna. But the dating does not rely on DNA. Variables that could play a role, like modern contaminations, cave sediments, relocation, etc. were accounted for. I don't say this is a final word because such a thing does not exist, but i doubt your right to generally put the work down. You said: As I said we have other reasons to believe that Feldhofer I was not greatly older than 40k because of the issues regarding the mtDNA persistence, and given the post disruption exposure to the elements we are lucky to have any DNA left in that sample, so it is reasonably to imply that the dates are close, but this really is 'in the ballpark' analysis. But getting the correct result may just be a matter of luck and the next time you may not be so lucky with the same technique. I will deal with this later with Oase 1. My reply: Correct, it is not greatly older than 40k. The dates and ranges are published. It is not a matter of luck as it was replicated through modern finds. Everything is nice so far :-) At the end: Besides all arguing and counting of molecules, it would be nice if you wouldn't repeatedly cite falsely but acknowledge the work that has been done so far. If you limit yourself to genetics, no problem for me, but don't put it as the only solution.

Answer over in your thread because it is unfriendly to derail the thread of another person. I don't want this one to be locked.

Depends on the language. Sol (Latin), sol, sole, sun, Sonne, soleil, ... It doesn't belong to a constellation so no alpha/beta/gamma constellationis. Is it listed in one of the numerous star catalogues ?

"elimination of double checking the flight program to reduce cost" That could turn into an expensive cost reduction. I doubt they do compass navigation as the sole means, variations change rapidly while flying around the earth and local variations exist as well and change over time. Marine charts have the the local deviation printed in them, as well as the rate of change.