Newsgroup sci.geo.geology 31624

Directory

In article <32185910.1DB0@killians.gsfc.nasa.gov>, 
winter@killians.gsfc.nasa.gov says...
>
>There goes the neighborhood. I thought this was supposed to be a
>moderated newsgroup...
Free Astropsychology - With such a view on "latitude" and  your 
neighbors the only
things that need moderation is your "scientific" self centered 
attitude.  Behind your post
the real question remain, do you belong to NASA or a gang@!(&^%%#@!?
Please honor the word SCIENCE, keep an open mind, be patient, 
investigate and do not be afraid of a different view.
Watch my next window - Aug. 25th for SURPRISES and EXPLOSIONS and 
LARGE quakes! Also, You may want to tell your superiors to avoid 
launching the shuttle on my windows (see Sept. dates Supernova) to 
avoid another tragedy or waste tax payers money on failed launches or 
"ELECTRONIC malfunction" (or loosing another expansive piece of 
electronic up there!)
I really hope you make a note of the dates and INVESTIGATE them!
September 2nd - 
September 11th -
September 17th-
September 29th-
Dr. Turi

In article <4va0kp$b1o@hecate.umd.edu>, Gordon Long  writes
>Kennedy   wrote:
>>Gordon Long  writes
>>>
>>>  The scientific method works.  The paper does present evidence for
>>>primitive life on Mars (yes, I've read it). 
>>Evidence - yes
>>Incontrovertible evidence - NO
>>Evidence with simpler explanations - probably
>>
>>Yes, I've read it as well, and remain convinced that this is evidence of
>>a near exhausted budget looking for reimbursement.
>
>  But what's your reasoning?  You can't just say, "Well, the canals
>didn't turn out to be correct, so this must be incorrect too".  Nor
>can you say "NASA wants more money, so this result must be incorrect".
>Given that the control samples -- meteorites taken from the same ice 
>field in Antartica -- showed no signs of biological activity (i.e. 
>absence of PAHs and carbonate globules), what basis do you have for
>claiming that there are "probably" simpler explanations?  Of course,
>you may be right -- it's entirely possible that an alternative
>explanation may in fact turn out to be the case.  But you shouldn't
>dismiss out-of-hand the possiblility of primitive life on Mars,
>especially based solely on a suspicion of NASA's motives.
>
I haven't dismissed life on Mars in any form whatsoever (in fact I still
beleive that despite the Viking lander results there may well be living
matter still on Mars).  Neither have I *dismissed* this work - but I
remain unconvinced by it.  This is particularly because there are
several alternative plausible explanations for the results (some of
which are raised in the paper itself).  What happenned to the principle
of Occam's razor - we only need to consider the unlikely alternative
after the most likely possibilities have been eliminated or disproved.
In this case the most likely causes have NOT, by Nasa's own admission,
been eliminated. 
So why all the HooHaa?  Because they needed the publicity to secure a
new tranche of funding - that is my theory, but I am willing to accept a
less likely alternative if you can disprove this one!
I am actually surprised at Nasa publicly making these claims since some
of the experimental evidence from the Viking lander supported the
conclusion that life was present.  The results were inconsistent with
some experiments saying yes, others no.  Nasa then spent a lot of time
and effort trying to develop alternative chemistries which would achieve
the positive results without the presence of biological activity.  Thus
eventually the Viking results were nailed as being negative.
If it was good practice to be cautious then, why is it no longer so?
_______________________________________________________
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers

Gvwmoore@netcom.com writes:
>>|> True, if Columbus had listened too much to the belief of his time that
>>|> the earth was flat and that he would sail off the edge of the earth, I'd
>>|> be living a bit closer to you :]
>>    The "belief of his time" was that the world was spherical.
>>    This was the "belief" for some 2000 years before Columbus.
>that must have been why in all those 2000 years, no one had a good map
>of the journey, evidence from other cultures,or evidently managed to
>sail there and back.
Well the Norsemen might have some dispute with this, but then they 
were pretty insane (and first class sailors)
Think about this Gvw, for most of that time nobody (aside from the Vikings)
really wanted to be out of sight from land for very long.  Let me give you
a choice, you can start hiking across this massive desert where 
there is no water and little food.  Or you can slowly work your way around
it exploring areas that have plenty of food and water.
Well MAYBE there is an oasis out there that I will reach before I run
out of water... then again maybe not.
Read Thor Heyerdahl's (sp?!) books about the Kon Tiki, Ra and Ra II.
then you will have some idea of why if somebody made it they never
came back. ("You want me to do that AGAIN? HA!")
It took months to cross the Atlantic, and the explorers of the time had
a pretty good idea that that might just be the case and they were not
going to hang their heinie out betting that they could make it.  Not
when the Mediteranian(sp) for the Greeks and Africa for the Europeans were
sitting there waiting to be sailed around.
And then we come to cost.
As I understand it the Queen viewed Columbus the same as a high risk 
venture capitalist views hir investments, yah win some, yah lose some.
He was outfitted with less than primo ships because the odds of somebody
making it across both the Atlantic and Pacific Ocean are , shall we say 
very long?  But hey, maybe he'll get lucky.
And please note that this is a country taking the risk (ok so Spain
wasn't one of the richest but still) That is basically what is
needed to absorb this kind of risk and there is only a limited
number of countries and they only have a limited amount of venture
capital to invest.
In short, it is perfectly reasonable that nobody would have gone exploring
before Columbus.
Robert
Morphis@physics.niu.edu
Real Men change diapers

In article , srlb@eskimo.com (Bob Berger) writes:
>In article <321ae566.3661186@news.kth.se>,
>Michael Noreen  wrote:
>>Replying to mike_t@geocities.com (Mike Turk) 
>>. 
>>: 
>>: Don't forget to mention that science makes absolutely no assumptions
>>: at all.
>>
>>This is actually not true. Geometry for instance is based on Euclides
>>five axioms (basically assumptions) (ie a straight line can be drawn
>>between any two points, and two parallell lines never meet).
>>
>>There is atleast one assumption (axiom) at the bottom of every
>>scientific theory.
>>
>
>All right all you experts, is geometry (or any branch of mathematics) a
>science? Seems to me mathematics is a game. You select a set of "rules", 
>apply them to a set of "objects", see what happens when you do. It has
>nothing to do with reality. The sciences, as I understand them, attempt
>to "explain" how things really are and/or how they work.    
True.  Nevertheless, there are axioms in science, too.  ONly, unlike 
the mathematical ones, they can be falsified.
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

PLEASE remove sci.astro.amateur from your newsgroup header before
forther responding to this thread. It is WELL beyond the scope of the
newsgroup. Your help in keeping the usenet useable is greatly
appreciated.
Tim

PLEASE remove sci.astro.amateur from your newsgroup header before
forther responding to this thread. It is WELL beyond the scope of the
newsgroup. Your help in keeping the usenet useable is greatly
appreciated.
Tim

In Newsgroup alt.life-mars, Zepp (zepp@snowcrest.net) wrote:
>)In article <4ul75o$6cp@skipper.netrail.net>, kaz@upx.net (KAZ Vorpal) wrote:
>)>In Newsgroup alt.life-mars, Young Ned of the Hill (bgreene@nunki.usc.edu) 
>)wrote:
>)>
>)>>)Yes, there is.  The atmospheric pressure at the datum (a type of 
>)arbitraty
>)>>)"sea level" for altitude measurements) is roughly 10 milibars, or about 
>)>>)1% of the standard SL pressure on earth.  This pressure is below the 
>)>>)triple point pressure for water, and when combined with an average temp. 
>)>>)of (I believe) about 200K, the only way liquid water can exist on the 
>)>>)surface would be if some of the strongest winds blew up against a cliff, 
>)>>)the conditions at the stagnation point of the wind could possibly allow 
>)>>)formation of liquid water, but those types of conditions don't last 
>)>>)long and would be highly transitoy if they happened at all.
>)>
>)>
>)>	Translation by someone who hasn't lost touch with reality when 
>)>learning such stuff.
>)>
>)>	It works like dry ice: the evaporation point of water on Mars 
>)>would be below the freezing point, so water would go straight from ice to 
>)>gas. This is because of low air pressure.
>)Sorry, Kaz -- your translation is unnecessary, except perhaps to the 
>)paranoid conspiracy folks, and let's face it, most of them really prefer the 
>)National Enquirer to the Net.  Anyone who's taken high school physics should 
>)understand exactly what Young Ned is talking about. 
	This is pathetic. People like you write computer manuals. First, 
most people can't even read a high school level novel comfortably, much 
less remember the above even /if/ they are among the minority who took the 
/elective/ physics course. How many people took years of French and can just 
remember how to count to ten?
>)Tell me; do you also believe, while ascribing theiving, lying motives to 
>)NASA, that all the Apollo missions were massive studio fakes to cover 
>)up embezzlements?  That's about how you're coming across.  Which is fine, if 
>)you *mean* to sound like a blithering idiot...
	Your ridiculous straw man arguments illustrate the complete 
vacancy of any adequate defense for your stance. The fact is that, while 
it's apparent that NASA went to Luna, they did it on money that would not 
have been surrendered to them voluntarily, by definition. Otherwise NASA 
should be a private industry. It is because people like you believe that 
the consumers would not do this of their own free will that you advocate 
raping their pocketbooks for your little pet causes.
	And this is, by definition again, wrong. Value is not what some 
egomaiacal elitist jerks define it to be, value is, as we've known since 
the physiocrats at least (a century before Marx), that value is whatever 
people are willing to /voluntarily/ exchange for something else.
	Which means that if you are having to FORCE people to pay for 
this, who would not have done it voluntarily, then you are stealing value 
from them...the value of what they would have spent it on otherwise.
--
Words of the Sentient:
It is capitalist America that produced the modern independent woman. Never in
history have women had more freedom of choice in regard to dress, behavior,
career, and sexual orietation. -- Camille Paglia
       mailto:kaz@upx.net | http://www.kaz.org/ | telnet://umb.upx.net:22
       See also #Polyamory, #Heinlein, and #Libertarian on the Undernet...

Thomas Scharle wrote:
> 
>      Is there any reason why this should be posted to 21 groups?
> 
>      No.  That's why I'm trimming the groups drastically.  I'm e-mailing
> this to Jerry, so he will find it, and he has the opportunity of retracting
> it in public.
> 
> In article <321845D4.7537@ix.netcom.com>, Jerry Teach  writes:
> [...]
> |> True, if Columbus had listened too much to the belief of his time that
> |> the earth was flat and that he would sail off the edge of the earth, I'd
> |> be living a bit closer to you :]
> [...]
> 
>     Not again????!!!!!
> 
>     The "belief of his time" was that the world was spherical.
> 
>     This was the "belief" for some 2000 years before Columbus.
> 
>     Everybody (except for a few crackpots, we always have crackpots
> among us :-o) knew that the earth was round (like a ball or a globe or
> a sphere) at the time of Columbus.  If they "laughed at Columbus"
> it wasn't because he said the world was round, it was because he
> was *wrong* in thinking it was so small.
Columbus used for his calculations numbers of the Earth's size that
where about  two-thirds too small. These numbers were believed to be
true only by a very small minority of 'experts', the majority assumed
the circumfence to be ~35000km, quite close to the actual number.
According to what I have read, Columbus used the smaller number to make
the whole undertaking look much cheaper and easier to accomplish.
Then as now, it has always been difficult to get funding for 'Big
Science'.
Achim

In article <321A8CBE.6DF@bgu.edu>, Jim Kelly  writes
>> |>The real reason that the majority of Americans are thick compared to
>> |>their European and Far Eastern equivalents 
>
>Hmmm..I am an American. So tell me, just what credentials do you posses,
>that should convince me that you are not just another lump on the
>collective pile of shit known as bigotry. Eh?
>    Perhaps your comparision of skull thickness is just a relative
>observation. In this way *everyones* heads would be thicker than yours.
>But it would also mean that your  head is *soft* and does not provide
>adequete protection for your brain. I think you have provided some data
>to support this.
> 
If you had bothered to read all of my post you would have realised that
I was not indicating that the US has less than its fair share or more so
of intelligensia.  It is, however, a quantifiable fact that the mean
intellect of the US population is not as high as it could be - all
internationally accepted measures of relative academic achievement back
this up.  My point was more one of admiration of those Americans who
actually achieve academic and scientific excellence under more difficult
cultural environments than their European and Far Eastern equivalents.
You may well fall into this category, I do not know, but if you do I am
sure that you will be aware that you are one of the priveledged few -
and I don't mean that in any political sense.  Europe may in general
have a higher level of academic and/or intellectual achievement for
their population as a whole, but I suspect (I haven't looked at the
detailed figures) that the spread from max to min is probably less than
in the US, given that the best of both areas are generally on a par.
This is why I referred specifically to the *majority*, which in general
does tend to dominate the mean.
_______________________________________________________
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers

In article ,
Wade Hines  wrote:
>>What we *can* do is observe the results of the process as it happens in the
>>world, we can model the process in the 'fast time' of computer simulations,
>>and we can develop analogous model systems (such as self-replicating
>>peptides). All these have been done, and support the second assumption.
>
>Ah!!! No self replicating peptides. Nope. 
>
"In an experiment that many thought couldn't be done, scientists at
Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, Calif., have designed the
first peptide that catalyzes its own replication."  CENews, Aug 12, 1996)
They cite a paper by Ghadiri and co-workers, Nature, vol 382, p 525
(1996).  It's recent, probably controversial, but looks like
it has been done.
paul
-- 
!!                 ELECTION '96 WRITE-IN CAMPAIGN:                 !!
!!       Vote for Jan Brady, Most Popular Girl in the Class!       !!
!!                                                                 !!
! Proud owner of a Johnny Switchblade, Urban Commando action figure !

William T. Thom authored several articles in the Minerals Resources of the 
United States series of the USGS from 1905 to 1913.
William T. Thom Jr. authored USGS Bulletins 736-B, 796-A, and 856; and 
USGS Professional Papers 108-J and 163. These were in the 20's and 30's.
In article <4vdbl3$ge1@cu.comp-unltd.com>, swainl@rocky.edu (Larry Swain) writes:
> We're in need of finding an article for which we have incomplete 
> bibliographic information.  The author is W. T. Thom, the subject matter 
> is Surface Geology, Shawmut Anticline area.  We believe that it was in 
> the U. S. Geological Survey bulletins sometime in the '20s or '30s.
> Can anyone help?  
> 
> Larry Swain
> Paul Adams Memorial Library
> Rocky Mountain College
> swainl@rocky.edu
> 

In article , 
singtech@teleport.com (Charles Cagle) says...
>
>In article <4vbvj5$iod@phunn1.sbphrd.com>, Frank_Hollis-1@sbphrd.com
>(Triple Quadrophenic) wrote:
>
>>In article , 
>>singtech@teleport.com (Charles Cagle) says...
>>>
>>> There are quite a few other possible sources
>>>for those meteorites.
>>>
>>
>>Name three. Oh, and as you're so keen on correct scientific procedure, all 
>>three places must be capable of producing this type of rock with the 
correct 
>>elemental and isotopic compositions.
>
>You must be implying that you know so much about planetary formation
>processes that there could only be a single place in the cosmos which
>could produce such ratios. 
Nope. I don't claim, or imply, that I know anything about planetary 
formation. All I say is that the evidence is consistant with Mars being the 
origin.
Indeed YOU imply that you know all about it when you say that there "ARE" 
(not may be) other possible sources. So what ARE (not might be) these 
sources?
I'm not interested in your list of things that we don't know. All I want is 
a list of some of these possible sources, along with the evidence you have 
for determining that they ARE reasonable possibilities.
-- 
-- BEGIN NVGP SIGNATURE Version 0.000001
Frank J Hollis, Mass Spectroscopy, SmithKline Beecham, Welwyn, UK
Frank_Hollis-1@sbphrd.com         or        fjh4@tutor.open.ac.uk
          All Opinions My Own (So My Employer Tells Me)

In article , 
singtech@teleport.com (Charles Cagle) says...
>
>In article <4vau5a$tss_004@mel.dit.csiro.au>, d.jensen@geel.dwt.csiro.au
>(Dennis Jensen) wrote:
>
>>Well,you are showing that you do not even have a good idea of the BCS 
theory. 
>>Read it on a weeties box, did you? The paired electrons are bound, but 
they 
>>are DEFINATELY NOT closely bound. Have a bit more of a read, and try to 
>>understand what is actually written, rather than trying to fabricate a 
reality 
>>based on what you thought should or should not have been written.
>
>They are definitely more closely bound than you are to, say, a spell check
>program.
>
>Define close.  Is occupying the same momentum space close enough or does
>it have to be the same physical space?  And can you define just what might
>be the limits of a particle's volume (or whether or not a particle
>actually occupies three dimensional space; or show proof that there
>actually is such a thing as three dimensional space?) so that we could all
>get a good idea of what 'close' means to you?
>
Close: Near together (OED)
When compared to the normal physical distances for bound fundamental 
particles the elecons that make up a Cooper pair are about as opposite to 
closely bound as you could get.
Once again Cagle's caught out in a scientific error. Once again he tries to 
wheedle his way out by spouting a load of metaphysical garbage to try to 
obfuscate the issue.
-- 
-- BEGIN NVGP SIGNATURE Version 0.000001
Frank J Hollis, Mass Spectroscopy, SmithKline Beecham, Welwyn, UK
Frank_Hollis-1@sbphrd.com         or        fjh4@tutor.open.ac.uk
          All Opinions My Own (So My Employer Tells Me)

>>	Due to the interaction of Earth and Moon, days on 
>>Earth used to be shorter than they are now.  (Can be determined
>>from corals.)  I believe that the Moon is moving away from the
>>Earth, i.e., the average Earth-Moon distance is increasing.
>>	At the present time, the size of the Moon as seen by 
>>the Earth is as large as the Sun's disk as seen from the Earth.
Sometimes it appears larger and sometimes it appears smaller.
>>This allows for the exact superposition of the two that gives us
>>the beautiful phenomenon of a solar eclipse.  It is also well-known
>>that the Moon can be a little bit closer, causing an annular
>>eclipse.
Wrong.  The moon can be a little bit FARTHER, causing an annular
eclipse.
>>	When the Moon was closer, there wouldn't have been a total
>>solar eclipse as we see it now.  The larger apparent diameter of
>>the Moon would have covered the Sun for a longer period of time.  
Wrong again.  When the moon was closer, there wouldn't have been the
annular eclipses we often see now.  The larger apparent diameter of
the moon would have covered the sun for a shorter period of time, due
to Kepler's third law.  Although the moon looks bigger, it is also
going faster.
>>The corona would likely still have been visible, but the effects like
>>Baily's Beads wouldn't have been as striking.  I guess there still
>>would have been a diamond ring effect.
Correct.
>>	So, my question boils down to:  how long ago did the apparent
>>diameters of the Sun and Moon become approximately equal (as viewed
>>from Earth, of course)?
A better question would be, how much longer will total eclipses be
visible?  They will eventually be replaced by annular eclipses.
Unfortunately, I don't know.
http://michele.gcccd.cc.ca.us/~ljohnson/johnson.html

In article <4vco29$iam@post.gsfc.nasa.gov>, jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov 
(James G. Acker) says...
>       So, my question boils down to:  how long ago did the apparent
>diameters of the Sun and Moon become approximately equal (as viewed
>from Earth, of course)?
>
Six million years ago.
Ten seconds ago.
Both answers are correct. It all depends on how approximate you want.
Geez. This is from NASA as well!!!
-- 
-- BEGIN NVGP SIGNATURE Version 0.000001
Frank J Hollis, Mass Spectroscopy, SmithKline Beecham, Welwyn, UK
Frank_Hollis-1@sbphrd.com         or        fjh4@tutor.open.ac.uk
          All Opinions My Own (So My Employer Tells Me)

: matts2@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein)
: Computer have two kinds of creatures inside them: Demons (or is
: daemons?) and Gremlins.  Simply put Daemons put you bits where you
: want them and Gremlins put your bits where you don't.  Programs are
: ritualistic prayers to the Demons so they will help you. 
I'm sorry, that's just the pre-classical theory, supplanted by
the classical "Boolean Algebra" theorists.  But today, we know
it's all due to Quantum Bogodynamics, and the quantum behavior
of the elementary particles of computation, the bogon and the computron.
--
Wayne Throop   throopw@sheol.org  http://sheol.org/throopw
               throopw@cisco.com
--
The Jargon File - version 3.3.1 entry for quantum bogodynamics
    quantum bogodynamics /kwon'tm boh`goh-di:-nam'iks/ n.  A theory that
    characterizes the universe in terms of bogon sources (such as
    politicians, used-car salesmen, TV evangelists, and suits in
    general), bogon sinks (such as taxpayers and computers), and
    bogosity potential fields.  Bogon absorption, of course, causes
    human beings to behave mindlessly and machines to fail (and may also
    cause both to emit secondary bogons); however, the precise mechanics
    of the bogon-computron interaction are not yet understood and remain
    to be elucidated.  Quantum bogodynamics is most often invoked to
    explain the sharp increase in hardware and software failures in the
    presence of suits; the latter emit bogons, which the former absorb. 
    See bogon, computron, suit, psyton. 
    computron /kom'pyoo-tron`/ n.  1.  A notional unit of computing
    power combining instruction speed and storage capacity, dimensioned
    roughly in instructions-per-second times megabytes-of-main-store
    times megabytes-of-mass-storage.  "That machine can't run GNU Emacs,
    it doesn't have enough computrons!" This usage is usually found in
    metaphors that treat computing power as a fungible commodity good,
    like a crop yield or diesel horsepower.  See bitty box, Get a real
    computer!, toy, crank.  2.  A mythical subatomic particle that bears
    the unit quantity of computation or information, in much the same
    way that an electron bears one unit of electric charge (see also
    bogon).  An elaborate pseudo-scientific theory of computrons has
    been developed based on the physical fact that the molecules in a
    solid object move more rapidly as it is heated.  It is argued that
    an object melts because the molecules have lost their information
    about where they are supposed to be (that is, they have emitted
    computrons).  This explains why computers get so hot and require air
    conditioning; they use up computrons.  Conversely, it should be
    possible to cool down an object by placing it in the path of a
    computron beam.  It is believed that this may also explain why
    machines that work at the factory fail in the computer room: the
    computrons there have been all used up by the other hardware.  (This
    theory probably owes something to the "Warlock" stories by Larry
    Niven, the best known being "What Good is a Glass Dagger?", in which
    magic is fueled by an exhaustible natural resource called `mana'.)

sschaper@inlink.com (Stephen D. Schaper) wrote:
>In article <4v772t$hbs@rosenews.rose.hp.com>, duanec@rose.hp.com
>(Carroll_Duane) wrote:
>>Could it be, that if Hoagland could be right on this subject, that maybe
>>just maybe, he might be right on something else ... like the area on
>>Mars that appears to have a face ... and pyramids?
>>
>>Could NASA ever admit that?  ... I wouldn't hold my breath.
> 
>Sigh. Hoagland has gone more off the beam as time progresses. I have a
>book called _The Face on Mars_ or something like that. When Hoagland first
>found it, there was quite a bit of interest in the listserv that got going
>among some scientists and image processers. But towards the end, when most
>involved thought that it would certainly be an interesting place to image
>with better resolution,  that Face Mesa is most likely a natural
>phenomenon, and that the pyramids are typical to Mars, and that the 'city'
>is the result of image processing artifacts. Hoagland, however, was
>completely convinced it was artificial, and started, you can see this,
>going off the deep end.
Since then, he has gotten into 'hyperdimensional physics', '20-mile
high Moon structures', and a novel explanation of the TWA 800
disaster.  The later involved a missile which he is totally incorrect
about as anyone who has worked with the Navy or reads Jane's would
know.  But keep those checks coming, folks.  
Information is not knowledge, knowledge is not wisdom, 
wisdom is not truth, truth is not beauty, beauty is not love

Michael Smith  wrote:
>
>However, Gov. Wilson is entirely interested in denying citizenship to 
>children born in this country if they are born of illegal immigrants. 
>This, in specific, is what I am refering to as fascist.
  Just to let you know, my daughter was born in Switzerland, but was
denied Swiss citizenship as a matter of policy.  And we were not illegal
immigrants -- we were in the country legally.  I'm not trying to make
any sort of good/bad judgement about Gov. Wilson's proposal; I just
wanted to point out that many democratic countries are not as liberal as
the U.S. when it comes to citizenship.
    - Gordon
--
#include 
Gordon Long                       |     Grad. Student, High Energy Physics
gordon@schwinger.physics.umd.edu  |     University of Maryland

In article <4vd5qs$ak5@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>, Gvwmoore@netcom.com writes:
|> >|> >|> True, if Columbus had listened too much to the belief of his time that
|> >|> >|> the earth was flat and that he would sail off the edge of the earth, I'd
|> >|> >|> be living a bit closer to you :]
|> >|> >    The "belief of his time" was that the world was spherical.
|> >|> >    This was the "belief" for some 2000 years before Columbus.
|> 
|> >|> that must have been why in all those 2000 years, no one had a good map
|> >|> of the journey, evidence from other cultures,or evidently managed to
|> >|> sail there and back.
|> 
|> >Aristotle, in his "On the Heavens" offers some good arguments as
|> >to why the earth is spherical, and gives an estimate of the
|> >circumference of the earth of 400,000 stadia, or somewhere around
|> >twice the modern value.
|> no map, no evidence, no sailing. are you stupid or something?
                                            ^^^^^^
    Ah, yes, the arrogance of ignorance.
|> 
|> 
|> >    "Roger Bacon (c. 1220-1292) affirmed the roundness of the earth
|> how? no map, no evidence, no sailing.
|> oh, i know, your book says they flew across the oceans back then.
[...rest deleted...]
    This, if it is not a troll, and I fear it is not, is evidence of
supreme ignorance of science.
    It's the old "creationist"/"fundamentalist"/"inerrantist" idea
that the only way that you can *know* something is if you can *see* 
it.   I wonder what evidence Gvwmoore has for the earth being round.
    This does serve as a good example of the problems with faulty
education in the US.  If people can swallow "creationism", I guess
they can swallow anything.
-- 
Tom Scharle scharle.1@.nd.edu        "standard disclaimer"
                                     "In this house, we obey the laws
                                     of thermodynamics"  Homer Simpson

trin@one.net wrote:
> My premise is that if I need ask a question, then I am doubtful.  I am
> certain my name is Brian, so I do not ask my mother what my name is.
> I am doubtful of what the best APR on a credit card I can get is, so I
> ask my father for direction.  If I am to ask God, in an unwavering
> manner, if he exists, then in my mind, I am doubting.  Hence, I have a
> catch-22.  What should I do?
If God is who the Bible says He is, then He loves you enough to send His 
son Jesus to die for your sins.  He's on your side.  Just be honest with 
God; He knows all about your misgivings.
-- 
Judson McClendon
Sun Valley Systems
Email: judsonmc@ix.netcom.com

In article , Kennedy  writes:
|> In article , Sean Webb
|> >Why do the yanks take 5 years for the PHD , when in the UK they take 3 ??
|> >Because they need the extra two to catch up , pure and simple.
No, not pure and simple. I'm moving from the U.S. system to lecture at Sheffield,
so I can speak with some confidence (and a lot more in a few years time). The
degree program at Sheffield is far more focused than that at the U.S. At
Macalester College, where I earned my B.A., I could have majored in Physics
taking under 30% of my classes in the department. (As it happens, I took 12/32
classes in physics and an additional 6 in mathematics; about 56% in physics and
mathematics.) The physics program would appear to require around 75% physics and
math. The MPhys at Sheffield is a 4 year program and I would say that it brings a
student to a level near that of a U.S. M.S. (6 years). 
So, you are right that the extra two years is catching up in amount of coursework
in the specific discipline. This also shows up in the first two years of graduate
coursework, where the Amreican students are behind their foreign peers. This much
said, a U.S. student with a Ph.D. in physics is significantly more experienced
than his/her British counterpart.
I would note that I think the British model is superior for the present state of
the employment situation. By the time one has invested 10 years in earning a PhD,
one gets rather bitter at having to leave the discipline.
[Paraphrased; Americans are thick because of a LCD culture.]
|> This doesn't mean the the US does't have any good scientists or other
|> professionals, they do and in many cases the individuals can be envied
|> by the rest of the world.  However, given the cultural circumstances
|> that they have to cope with, these *successes* have to be quite special
|> individuals in the first place and/or have to work damned hard to make
|> their achievements.
No. By this logic, Americans have a small presence on the world intellectual
stage. America having an immigrant culture (notwithstanding grandstanding by
politicians) enables us to attract highly talented individuals from outside the
country. After all, how do you think we *got* all that money to attract people.
-- 
Paul Lane	Tel: (801) 581-4402	Fax: (801) 581-4801
Department of Physics (201 JFB); University of Utah; Salt Lake City, UT 84112
Moving to Sheffield, England as of 01/97 (p.lane@sheffield.ac.uk)

Khamdy Xayaraj wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
>   Please help me to interpret the amount of gold contents
> of the drill result from BEMA. My background is in
> Electrical Engineering. I have no idea of how to interprete
> the result below. If you don't mind, please educate me, or
> suggest a practical book of how to interpret the drilling
> results.
>
Dear Khamdy:
There is no short answer to your question, and there is not enough
information for an accurate estimate. I suggest you read through Chapter
5.6, "Ore Reserve/Resource Estimation", in Vol. 1 of the SME Mining
Engineering Handbook, 2nd Edition, Howard L. Hartman, Senior Editor.
Best regards,
Bill Lady

In article ,
Charles Cagle  wrote:
>In article <4vauk0$tss_005@mel.dit.csiro.au>, d.jensen@geel.dwt.csiro.au
>(Dennis Jensen) wrote:
>
>>In article ,
>>   singtech@teleport.com (Charles Cagle) wrote:
>>>In article <4va1ps$qh6@post.gsfc.nasa.gov>, jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov
>>>(James G. Acker) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>I'll start with the foundation of the Big Bang and see if it is weak.  But
>>>>>what is the foundation?  It is conceived that the differentiation of
>>>>>matter led to an expansion of the general volume of the universe and that
>>>>
>>>>        Actually, I don't think it's called differentiation of matter.
>>>>I think it's an oscillation in the vacuum energy.  But your 
>>>>terminology is not very easy for me to figure out.  Sorry.
>>>
>>>Oscillation in the vacuum energy?  This presupposes a three dimensonal
>>>framework which without subtantive matter could be called a vacuum.  My
>>>argument was presented to destroy the framework itself but you use it
>>>presuppositionally.
>>>
>>>
>>>>        I'm unqualified to critique what you have just written.
>>>>I can't argue the point conceptually, either.  So let me ask a 
>>>>question of interest:  if I assume that the Big Bang is incorrect
>>>>as an explanation for the beginning of the Universe, how are the 
>>>>3K background radiation and the COBE observations accounted for?
>>>>Is there a suitable alternate cosmology that accounts for them 
>>>>adequately?
>>>
>>>I'm not required to explain it.  Right now it exists as part of a data
>>>table.  It could be remanants of processes we are yet to discover.
>>
>>Point is Charles, you are saying that Big Bang is "crap". Now, most of the 
>>data we have is in line with the Big Bang theory; indeed, the Big Bang 
>>predicted aspects such as the 3K background radiation, and fluctuating energy 
>>density. In order to refute the theory; come up with a better one.
>
>Point is Dennis, your artificial rule which states: "In order to refute
>the theory; come up with a better one." is just that, an artificial rule
>with no logical foundation.  You presuppose that only a better theory can
>cause the demise of an accepted one.  
>
>If a theory is demonstrated to be wrong there is no automatic requirement
>to produce something to replace it.  This is simply bad logic on your
>part.  Often I see this logic stated as if it were some kind of axiom so
>that like an ancient one which stated: 'nature hates a vacuum' it seems
>likewise do men when it comes to phenomena and their explanations. 
>Phenomena don't need a theory to work but it seems that very many people
>are only comfortable when they have an explanation of the data (even if it
>is wrong).  Of course, it would be nice to have an intimate knowledge of
>the universe but one must ultimately ask themselves: "Which is worse:  To
>have no explanation or to have one which is wrong?"  I think modern
>'science' in many cases has plainly opted for the latter.
>
>-- 
>C. Cagle
>Singularity Technologies, Inc.
>1640 Oak Grove Road, N.W.
>Salem, OR  97304
>
>Ph: 503/362-7781
>
>"Don't worry about people stealing your ideas.  If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats."
>                - Howard Aiken
	True you do not have to have a better theory to refute a crummy one,
but it seems to me that a theory should be criticized based on the 
predictions it makes and consistancy with the evidence at hand.
It is my understanding, correct me if I am wrong,that the your main problem with
The Big Bang theory has been that it is not falsfiable.
The lack of falsifiability
is an attack on the ability to deny the hypothesis that the universe
began as a Big Bang.  It seems to me the basis of your claim is since we can't
go back in time to the begining we can't confirm whether this actually
occurred.  In the case of the Mars Life evidence you are saying that 
there is always an alternative explanantion.  For example, the isotopic
ratio of elements could have the source from another planet outside
our solar system.  Hence you are not criticising the experimental evidence
or theoretical basis of the theories, but the whole concept of verifying
events that occured in the past and is not repeatable.  On the fundamental
level you are correct in saying that we can never have absolutely 
certainty with respect to such events.  However, it is possible to
present evidence of such thoeries and increase the likleyhood that
the theory is correct.  The Big Bang, for instance, represents our
"Best Guess" as to the origin of the universe.  It is our best guess,
because it is consistent with known physical laws, and makes predictions
about the CURRENT state of the universe that can be checked.  If 
a better theory comes along we should be willing to accept it.  Or
if it is shown to be inconsistent with physical theory or evidence
it should be thrown out.  The issue of falsifiabilty is a important
issue, but when it comes to past non-repeatable events, the best we can do
is have a theory that makes predictions about the current situation
that we can test.
	As a society, we seem to be of the mind set that once
enough evidence of a theory of the past is accumulated, the probability that
an alternative explanantion is correct, is reduced far enough that
we accept it as true.  After all, Isn't this what we do with Court Trials.
Don't we accumulate evidence of truth or falsehood of some hypothesis,
eg Joe Blow murdered Jane X, and then make a decison on whether they
are guilty or innocent beyond a reasoable doubt.  Ofcourse there are many times,
where the conclusion is a false negative or false positive, but 
on average the true conclusion, hopefully, is reached many more times
than the false.
						-Brad	

8/21/96
	While critisism can be an advantage, its values may be differentiated.
I have a preference with it from a knowledge oriented territory.
Social-emotional oriented consummatory actions validize the
social-emotional oriented territory and do indicate a biobehavioral
state but as it is a rough localization, the social comments are of
limited value. Are responses primarily a social-emotional validizer or
primarily a knowledge oriented validizer? GPS.

In article <321A1AE1.EF0@ix.netcom.com>,
	Judson McClendon  writes:
> ....  The issue is to search out the truth and make 
> our opinions in line with it.
Herein lies the crux of the problem.  Scientists have a way of determing
truth (the scientific method) some fundamentalists have another (e.g.
bilical exegesis, prayer).  The methods of one are neither easily
translated into nor accepted by the other; thus, disagreement is
inevitable, in my opinion.
I leave it to the reader to decide which method is more reliable.
-- 
Steve Emmerson        steve@unidata.ucar.edu        ...!ncar!unidata!steve