It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# New Evidence Suggests People Lived in the Arctic 45,000 Years Ago

page: 7
54
share:

posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 08:15 PM

The only way to conserve the angular momentum is to change the axis on which she rotates, effectively re-centering her center of gravity.

No.
Angular momentum is conserved. The Universe says so.

posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 08:19 PM

Except for Newton's first law of (rotational) motion, which states that a body will continue to spin at the same angular velocity unless there is an external torque applied, or there is a change in it's distribution of mass.

Like I said. Unless there was a "counter balance" rock of equal mass in her opposite hand, her angular velocity will change, thereby changing her angular momentum. And, unless she wants to fall, she would have to change her rotational mass to re-center her center of gravity.

This also doesn't take into account the torque applied over time by the extra weight of the rock being unbalanced.
edit on 23-1-2016 by JohnathanDoe because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-1-2016 by JohnathanDoe because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 08:25 PM

Except for Newton's first law of rotational motion, which states that a body will continue to spin at the same angular velocity unless there is an external rotation torque applied, or there is a change in it's distribution of mass.
Yes. That is why the conservation of angular momentum requires that the rotational velocity decreases when a skater extends her arms. And, because moment is conserved, rotational velocity will increase when she pulls her arms in.

Like I said. Unless there was a "counter balance" rock of equal mass in her opposite hand, her angular velocity will change, thereby changing her angular momentum.
You need to lookup of the formula for angular momentum. It is conserved, so when the radius changes, the velocity must.

None of which has anything to do with a change in the figure axis not changing the rotational axis.

edit on 1/23/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 08:37 PM

Fine, whatever.

p = (m) x (v). (v) decreases, (p) decreases. Guess what p, m, and v are? Momentum (p), Mass (m), and Velocity (m). I wonder how that happened. Could it be the uneven distribution of mass?

posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 08:39 PM

I wonder how that happened.
Me too. Where's r?
Angular momentum. Want to try again?

Not that it has anything to do with a change in the figure axis affecting the rotational axis.

edit on 1/23/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 08:56 PM

originally posted by: Phage

I wonder how that happened.
Me too. Where's r?
Angular momentum. Want to try again?

Not that it has anything to do with a change in the figure axis affecting the rotational axis.

Add in r and show us all how it changes the fact that one side of the equation decreases but the other doesn't.

And you're the one that struck off on a tangent to argue momentum.
edit on 23-1-2016 by JohnathanDoe because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 09:13 PM

Add in r and show us all how it changes the fact that one side of the equation decreases but the other doesn't.
No. You do the math. You figure out which variables must change.

And you're the one that struck off on a tangent to argue momentum.
It was not a tangent, but it was you who said:

she is changing her mass distribution, which alters her angular velocity, which alters her angular momentum.
Which is wrong.

Still, nothing to do with changes to the rotational axis.

edit on 1/23/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 09:47 PM

I gave you the math. p = (m) x (v). The equation doesn't change. The only thing that changes is the (v) variable. The equation is still the same.

And you decided to go off on a tangent and argue that her momentum doesn't change. Except it does.

And in order to keep rotating, she has to change her rotational axis, as we've already discussed.

What else would you like to argue about?

posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 10:09 PM

And you decided to go off on a tangent and argue that her momentum doesn't change. Except it does.

No. It doesn't.
Apply the variables.
m does not change. r changes and v changes. That means that momentum does not.

posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 10:56 PM

Again, if she were holding a rock with equal mass in the other hand, you would be correct. Her center of gravity would not change, and her angular momentum would not change. When she begins to extend her arm, she has an uneven mass distribution. The uneven mass distribution acts as an outside force to your closed system... She has to compensate by shifting her axis or she will fall.

Again, broken washing machine. Let it run forever with an unbalanced load, and it will break down because the tank will come off it's axis.
edit on 23-1-2016 by JohnathanDoe because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 11:02 PM

The uneven mass distribution acts as an outside force to your closed system...

No it doesn't.

Redistribution of mass does not require an outside force. The skater is the system. Momentum is conserved.

A dance partner, grabbing her and lifting her would constitute an outside force but that is not what is happening.

edit on 1/23/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 11:08 PM
Let's get back on topic, shall we?

Somewhere along the line, the thread took a huge swerve...

Topic is...
New Evidence Suggests People Lived in the Arctic 45,000 Years Ago

thanks.

posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 11:10 PM

I think it's cool, though not surprising, that evidence of people killing mammoths in Siberia 45,000 years ago has been found.

posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 11:55 PM

originally posted by: Phage

I think it's cool, though not surprising, that evidence of people killing mammoths in Siberia 45,000 years ago has been found.

Or, is it evidence that mammoths had conspired to kill humans?!??!

posted on Jan, 24 2016 @ 12:03 AM
Perhaps.
But we know how that worked out for them.

posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 01:44 AM

originally posted by: Marduk

originally posted by: namelesss

You cannot find a single instance to illustrate my point?

Right back atcha.
It has already been admitted here that ages, whether greater maximally, or minimally, continue to point to older.
And I am bored with this juvenile peeing contest.
What is wrong with 'scientists' that they are incapable of philosophy? Damned few, anyway. If it it is not on the table, with the peer seal of approval, you have no thoughts at all on the matter? Sad.
I offer an observation and you whine for peer reviews.
Boring.

Before I leave this thread, I offer the following in evidence and support to what I observed;

Actually, the search parameter was "(fill in the blank) is older than previously thought"!
Oddly enough, whatever I filled in the blank yielded positive results!

But, hey, you guys couldn't possible have done that for yourselves, right?
Pffft!

edit on 27-1-2016 by namelesss because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 01:48 AM

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: namelesss
Dear Harte, even if the dates continue to get incrementally smaller and smaller, and we can even say 'consistently' (for argument's sake) the dates still do not seem to get any younger, generally.

This reflects only the accuracy of dates determined through less accurate means

I was offering an observation of what I observed. I did not lie.
And asked for thoughts, not a lynching.
All 'means' are "less accurate"!

I am bored and disgusted with this topic.
I offered some possible food for thought and all you guys can do is to pee on it!
Whatever.
I won't make that error again, here.

posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 04:28 AM

originally posted by: namelesss

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: namelesss
Dear Harte, even if the dates continue to get incrementally smaller and smaller, and we can even say 'consistently' (for argument's sake) the dates still do not seem to get any younger, generally.

This reflects only the accuracy of dates determined through less accurate means

I was offering an observation of what I observed. I did not lie.

Then what's this:

originally posted by: namelesss
It has already been admitted here that ages, whether greater maximally, or minimally, continue to point to older.

originally posted by: namelesssAnd asked for thoughts, not a lynching.

And you got thoughts. Apparently, you didn't want "thoughts." You wanted mindless agreement.

originally posted by: namelesssAll 'means' are "less accurate"!

I am bored and disgusted with this topic.
I offered some possible food for thought and all you guys can do is to pee on it!
Whatever.
I won't make that error again, here.

Well, that's progress.

Harte

posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 06:30 AM

Just because You would say that Milan has a closer to Continental than Sub-Tropical climate does not make it so. It is listed as Sub-Tropical with a Continental influence. Montreal gets more precipitation in the winter than Milan does throughout the entire year as a result of the Alps effectively cutting off storm fronts. You showed evidence of snow in Milan, that doesn't mean that it has snowfall averages on par with Montreal though. The 3 locations I cited do in fact have different localized climates from one another and Milan is by far, the most mild of the 3.

You said that its climate resembles to that of the Caribbean which is false. Your words, not mine....And I can tell you It is nothing like that. I can concur that it`s probably not like in Montreal either but it is closer to Montreal than the Caribbean...

You will see more snow in Milan than you will ever in the Caribbean...here are some more videos just for you..

Now please show me a video of that much snow in the Caribbean on the same altitude....and even if I give you some slack, you can try and find that much snow higher up in let`s say Orlando, Florida..
edit on 27-1-2016 by Op3nM1nd3d because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 07:32 AM

originally posted by: namelesss

originally posted by: Marduk

originally posted by: namelesss

You cannot find a single instance to illustrate my point?

Right back atcha.

Before I leave this thread, I offer the following in evidence and support to what I observed;

None of those links support your claim for bones which are consistently found to be older with new technology
So from this point on, I can see that you were making it up to suit yourself and don't have any evidence for your beliefs
Why am I not surprised...

54