Bookmark this page:
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
I heard an arctic paleontologist taking on the radio today. He mentioned
something about the latitude of some of his fossil finds not being the same
number today as it would have been when the animal was alive. The
implication that I took from his statement is that the latitude of earth's
geographic features can change over geological time periods. I'm not taking
about continental drift or anything like that. The man seemed to be saying
that a 'stationary' point on the earth's surface would be described by
varying latitude numbers over very long periods of time.
I didn't really understand this so I've been trying to do some research
about it on the web. The best I can come up with is this: 1) latitude is
referenced to the equator, 2) the equator is defined by the great circle
that is equidistant from the geographic poles, and 3) the precession of the
earth's rotation changes the location of the earth's rotation axis in space.
I suppose if this precession changed the physical location of the earth's
poles with respect to the earth's geographical features, then the latitude
of earth's geographic features would also change over long time periods as
the equator changed position. But I didn't think that the location of the
axis changed because of precession; only its tilt.
Is there I any validity in what I think this man said? Perhaps I
misunderstood what he meant. Just curious. Thanks.
Mardon wrote:
Why isn't it to do with continental drift? There isn't an Arctic continent
at the moment (not sure there ever was) so an "arctic paleontologist" must
concentrate on the considerable amount of land, in different continents,
within the Arctic Circle...
Mike.
--
If reply address is invalid, remove spurious "@" and substitute "plus"
where needed.
On 03.05.2009 00:40, Mike Coon wrote:
> Mardon wrote:
>> I heard an arctic paleontologist taking on the radio today. He
>> mentioned something about the latitude of some of his fossil finds
>> not being the same number today as it would have been when the animal
>> was alive. The implication that I took from his statement is that
>> the latitude of earth's geographic features can change over
>> geological time periods. I'm not taking about continental drift or
>> anything like that. The man seemed to be saying that a 'stationary'
>> point on the earth's surface would be described by varying latitude
>> numbers over very long periods of time.
>> I didn't really understand this so I've been trying to do some
>> research about it on the web. The best I can come up with is this: 1)
>> latitude is referenced to the equator, 2) the equator is defined
>> by the great circle that is equidistant from the geographic poles,
>> and 3) the precession of the earth's rotation changes the location of
>> the earth's rotation axis in space. I suppose if this precession
>> changed the physical location of the earth's poles with respect to
>> the earth's geographical features, then the latitude of earth's
>> geographic features would also change over long time periods as the
>> equator changed position. But I didn't think that the location of
>> the axis changed because of precession; only its tilt.
>> Is there I any validity in what I think this man said? Perhaps I
>> misunderstood what he meant. Just curious. Thanks.
>> mentioned something about the latitude of some of his fossil finds
>> not being the same number today as it would have been when the animal
>> was alive. The implication that I took from his statement is that
>> the latitude of earth's geographic features can change over
>> geological time periods. I'm not taking about continental drift or
>> anything like that. The man seemed to be saying that a 'stationary'
>> point on the earth's surface would be described by varying latitude
>> numbers over very long periods of time.
>> I didn't really understand this so I've been trying to do some
>> research about it on the web. The best I can come up with is this: 1)
>> latitude is referenced to the equator, 2) the equator is defined
>> by the great circle that is equidistant from the geographic poles,
>> and 3) the precession of the earth's rotation changes the location of
>> the earth's rotation axis in space. I suppose if this precession
>> changed the physical location of the earth's poles with respect to
>> the earth's geographical features, then the latitude of earth's
>> geographic features would also change over long time periods as the
>> equator changed position. But I didn't think that the location of
>> the axis changed because of precession; only its tilt.
>> Is there I any validity in what I think this man said? Perhaps I
>> misunderstood what he meant. Just curious. Thanks.
>
> Why isn't it to do with continental drift? There isn't an Arctic continent
> at the moment (not sure there ever was) so an "arctic paleontologist" must
> concentrate on the considerable amount of land, in different continents,
> within the Arctic Circle...
>
> Mike.
> Why isn't it to do with continental drift? There isn't an Arctic continent
> at the moment (not sure there ever was) so an "arctic paleontologist" must
> concentrate on the considerable amount of land, in different continents,
> within the Arctic Circle...
>
> Mike.
You might like to read "The Path of the Pole" by Charles Hapgood (second
edition 1970). According to Hapgood, the poles have been shifting all
over the place, and sometimes much quicker than the continental drift
theory would suggest.
--
Arne Hamre
> You might like to read "The Path of the Pole" by Charles Hapgood (second
> edition 1970). According to Hapgood, the poles have been shifting all
> over the place, and sometimes much quicker than the continental drift
> theory would suggest.
> edition 1970). According to Hapgood, the poles have been shifting all
> over the place, and sometimes much quicker than the continental drift
> theory would suggest.
Please, not that crackpot again,
Jan
> I heard an arctic paleontologist taking on the radio today. He mentioned
> something about the latitude of some of his fossil finds not being the same
> number today as it would have been when the animal was alive. The
> implication that I took from his statement is that the latitude of earth's
> geographic features can change over geological time periods. I'm not taking
> about continental drift or anything like that. The man seemed to be saying
> that a 'stationary' point on the earth's surface would be described by
> varying latitude numbers over very long periods of time.
> something about the latitude of some of his fossil finds not being the same
> number today as it would have been when the animal was alive. The
> implication that I took from his statement is that the latitude of earth's
> geographic features can change over geological time periods. I'm not taking
> about continental drift or anything like that. The man seemed to be saying
> that a 'stationary' point on the earth's surface would be described by
> varying latitude numbers over very long periods of time.
Not just over geological time.
Depending on where you are your latitude
will change by several centimeters a year,
Jan
- SVN49 Tip of the Iceberg?
- Satellite Navigation
- 2009-07-21
- Daylight savings time update issue
- Garmin GPS
- 2008-04-05
- Changing time offset in GPX?
- Satellite Navigation
- 2006-08-11
- Time Too Good to Be True
- Satellite Navigation
- 2006-03-19
> mentioned something about the latitude of some of his fossil finds
> not being the same number today as it would have been when the animal
> was alive. The implication that I took from his statement is that
> the latitude of earth's geographic features can change over
> geological time periods. I'm not taking about continental drift or
> anything like that. The man seemed to be saying that a 'stationary'
> point on the earth's surface would be described by varying latitude
> numbers over very long periods of time.
> I didn't really understand this so I've been trying to do some
> research about it on the web. The best I can come up with is this: 1)
> latitude is referenced to the equator, 2) the equator is defined
> by the great circle that is equidistant from the geographic poles,
> and 3) the precession of the earth's rotation changes the location of
> the earth's rotation axis in space. I suppose if this precession
> changed the physical location of the earth's poles with respect to
> the earth's geographical features, then the latitude of earth's
> geographic features would also change over long time periods as the
> equator changed position. But I didn't think that the location of
> the axis changed because of precession; only its tilt.
> Is there I any validity in what I think this man said? Perhaps I
> misunderstood what he meant. Just curious. Thanks.