Why is There NO Record of Ancient <12000bce Humans?

[jimmywalter]

Why is There NO Record of Ancient Humans?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-d4zfovcog
Interesting perspective about periodic mass extinction events wiping out all traces as the solar system makes the grand circuit, rising and falling around the turning galaxy as the galaxy itself travels through space. It seems the last big change in the Human Genome was between 100k and 200k years ago
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22658331/
https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com ... 015-0866-z
While the evidence of steady expansion of earth is nill, nothing precludes periodic increases as the earth travels through pockets of material as the sun circles the galaxy, including the up and down the the galactic plane.
At any rate, I found the first video interesting and thoughtful-

[silvergreylion]

While the evidence of steady expansion of earth is nill

Subduction should result in ocean floor sediment being scraped off and accumulating over subduction boundaries.
I tried doing a calculation; 10 m thick sediment, 5 cm/year over 200 million years,
should result in mountain ranges 8.6 km high and 17 km wide along subduction boundaries.
Let me know if you find them, I don't see any.

[jimmywalter]

While the evidence of steady expansion of earth is nill

Subduction should result in ocean floor sediment being scraped off and accumulating over subduction boundaries.
I tried doing a calculation; 10 m thick sediment, 5 cm/year over 200 million years,
should result in mountain ranges 8.6 km high and 17 km wide along subduction boundaries.
Let me know if you find them, I don't see any.

Sorry, I missed your point. And where are your calculations? I am not opposing tectonic plates. I would point out that the dinosaurs would not have been able to stand with today's gravity. The video link I included with my original post on this indicates that there might have been periods of the solar system passing through huge amounts of debris which would have produced huge meteor showers that not only wiped out most life, but, I think, could have significantly increased the earth's mass.

[silvergreylion]

Sorry, I missed your point. And where are your calculations?

10 m height x 1 m wide x 5 cm/year = ½ m^3 accumulated per year, on a 1 m wide section.
½ m^3 per year x 200 million years = 100 million m^3 of sediment accreted, or 10 km x 10 km of sediment, still on a 1 m wide section.
It doesn't pile up into a square ofc. I assumed a parabolic shape in my first calculation (on a different forum), but I'll do double rectangle here:
Imagine a 10 x 10 km square split into two rectangles, with side length 10 km.
That's instead a 10 km high mountain range, with a 20 km wide base.

I am not opposing tectonic plates.

I am not either. I am opposing subduction.

I would point out that the dinosaurs would not have been able to stand with today's gravity.

I agree with that.

The video link I included with my original post on this indicates that there might have been periods of the solar system passing through huge amounts of debris which would have produced huge meteor showers that not only wiped out most life, but, I think, could have significantly increased the earth's mass.

Increased it enough to basically double the gravity?
I don't think such a "Ragnarok" would've left us with any remains of dinosaurs whatsoever, or for any life to have survived it, for that matter.

The main EU view, is that gravity has an electrical or electromagnetic explanation, and that Earth was in a different electrical environment
back then, with a lesser electrical field strength, with a corresponding lower gravity.