Newsgroup sci.geo.geology 31649

Directory

John Wilkins (wilkins@wehi.edu.au) wrote:
: In article , medved@access5.digex.net (Ted
: Holden) wrote:
: | John Mitchell  writes:
: | 
: | >Perhaps, you should read Richard Dawkins (The Selfish Gene, The Blind 
: | >Watchmaker, River out of Eden, etc.), M. Mitchell Waldrop (Complexity), 
: | >Daniel C. Dennett (Darwin's Dangerous Idea) to realize that evolutionary 
: | >theory is being applied in most scientific, economic and other 
: | >disciplines.
: | 
: | Perhaps you should read the Communist Manifesto or Adolph Hitler's Mein
: | Kampf to realize how evolutionary theory was being applied to government
: | organization a generation or two ago.  It doesn't do scientific
: | disciplines any more good than it does governments.
: Perhaps you should read Douglas Hofstadter's book on Social Darwinism to
: realise that the views expressed under that name are not Darwinian but
: Spencerian. Perhaps you should attempt to show that there has been REAL
: historical influence of Darwinism on Hitler or Marx and Engels and not
: merely the use of an influential name in order to claim credibility, such
: as the use of the word "science" in Scientology or Christian Science.
: By the way: Marx may have admired Darwin's theory, but his views and
: Marx's diverge pretty substantially. For example, Marxism has a staged
: view of history -- events are forced to develop in a particular way.
: Darwin's theory is the exact reverse in that respect, and later Marxists
: (eg, Lysenkoism) rejected Darwinism for that reason.
: -- 
: John Wilkins, Head of Communication Services, Walter and Eliza
: Hall Institute of Medical Research
: 
: If a chicken could talk, we would not be able to understand why it
: crossed the road... [apologies to Wittgenstein]

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 ,
   Aaron Boyden <6500adb@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu> wrote:
>On Wed, 21 Aug 1996, Dennis Jensen wrote:
>
>> It was certainly not Ptolemy, who believed the earth to be flat. It was 
>> actually Eratosthenes who calculated the circumference of the earth. If you 
>> are interested in how he did this, I will let you know.
>
>Ptolemy certainly did not believe the earth to be flat.  The silly belief 
>commonly attributed to him is that the earth is the center of the 
>universe, though Duhem suggests that even that may be less than 
>completely fair.
>
>---
>Aaron Boyden
>
>"Any competent philosopher who does not understand something will take care 
>not to understand anything else whereby it might be explained."  -David Lewis 
>
Sorry, you are completely correct. My problem for mixing up earth centred and 
flat earth. However, it was Eratosthenes who first made a reasonable 
calculation of the circumference of the earth.
Dennis

000000

In article <321A1AE1.EF0@ix.netcom.com>,
Judson McClendon   wrote:
>trin@one.net wrote:
>> Why does it make evolutionists wrong if God exists?
Evolution is independent of the issue of "God's existence". Evolution
has never been about invalidating the premise of "God". Humanity can't
define "God" and this limitation gaurantees that "God" doesn't exist as
far as acts of definitions-by-Humans go. If we can't agree on the
meanings of words --- and we demonstrably can not --- then we must try
agreeing on long paragraphs-of-words. In that sense, the misery of icons
and symbols and their *claimed* meaning can be escaped.
Think of how loaded the geometry of a "cross" or a "swastika" is. It's
as if the GEOMETRY of the symbols could only mean Christ for the former
and Nazi for the latter. Basically, Humanity's eyes are B L I N D.
Whatever is it about the Geometry that this nonsense persists? Think
about the futility the person who posted the "Inverted Hexagon" (i.e.,
Star of David) incident is representing. Don't hold the GEOMETRY
responsible for your preprogrammed hostile reactions/interpretations.
The geometry of a symbol is no much cognizant of the symbolic
representations it inadvertantly instills in the Observor's Mind as the
letters are in this sentence for the meanings it implies.
>It makes evolutionists wrong if God created man as recorded in the 
>Bible.  The Bible and evolution are in contradiction.
Not talking to or against anyone in specific...
"God"? BibleGod? ShivaGod? BuddhaGod? JesusGod? ... God?, I get it, God?
It seems to me that the CS guys have a concerted plan to paint
scientists, specifically evolutionists, as nonbelievers in "God". By
painting them in this light, the CS guys hope to claim "God" to be on
their side. Strange how they work.
First and foremost, a lot of religiously active individuals practice
safe-Science (TM pending). Safe-Science is knowing how to cook with
fire, electricity, microwaves, etcetra. Even the CS Gurus know what it
takes to bake a cake. And they do this all the while practicing the thing
called SafeScience (SS). Another example of SS is refraining from
throwing rocks on your newborn baby's head.
This idea that Evolutionists are against concepts of God is mere
propaganda to brainwash the --- ironically --- mindless. How apropos.
>> Did God tell you they were wrong?
>
>The Bible tells me they are wrong.  I believe the Bible to be God's 
>word.  So, in that sense, God did tell me they are wrong.
You believe? "Believe"? Was your God such a Literary Cripple that He
could only write one Book! And it, full of contradictions? Perhaps you
yourself are too prejudiced to read any other Books. Perhaps CS is more
about discrimination. Hell, Noah thought it perfectly honest to save
only *his* family members from the Flood. God's Genecidal apparently.
The "Flood" maybe metaphoric, but it certainly suggests that eliminating
all other life on Earth save your precious "family" is behaviour
suitable for a almighty and forgiving Deity? And if I accept your
"Flood" Myth, does that mean you and I are cousins? If my other cousins
are monkeys does that make you a monkey too? When's God's next flood and
which *one* family is He going to select from all the mighty and worthy
CS-families that are spread out across the vast Planet Waco? I just
wantta know what to wear! 		[A wink for my friends ;-)]
>> What if you're wrong?
>
>My opinion isn't worth the energy to display it on your screen, unless 
>it reflects the truth.  Truth stands alone with or without my, or 
>anybody elses opinion.  The issue is to search out the truth and make 
>our opinions in line with it.
Beautiful line. Yet your opinion isn't even your own! The energy 
expended upon making one's own opinion hasn't yet been invested by you.
"The issue is to search out the truth 
and make our opinions in line with it"???????????????????????????
You definitely need to INHALE big time Buddy. 
Axiom: You can't seek out the truth if you already believe you hold it.
By definition, all you CS guys are looking for is reassurance and
(scientific) validation of your preconceived beliefs. What amazes me is
that you have the good sense to seek that assurance and validation
through the discipline Evolution has labeled Scientific Method. I mean,
why don't you just pass a Republican Law to Jury Nullify all of Evolution
and to accept your Dogma as the Majority Rule? Why bother us few
scientists who may or may not be religious and/or Christians?
>> Are you comfortable with evolution?
>
>If it was in agreement with the Bible, I would be tickled by it. ;)
Evolution will never be in agreement with Bibles written before the year
1996. Tomorrow's Bibles are welcome to rewrite themselves so as to agree
with the Objective Findings of Evolution. You can even borrow the
"language" from the Darwinian School of Thought. Hell, you don't have to
even expend the *energy* to invent new names for all the fossil records
you fail to acknowledge. It's all been done. Just CuTT&PasTe.;
>> Are you comfortable with taking responsibility fo your own actions?
>
>You bet.  The neat thing is that God's Word promises us that if we 
>confess (acknowledge) our sins and accept Jesus death on the cross as 
>payment for those sins, God will forgive us.  I did and He did and that 
>settles it for me.
So no matter what Idiotic thing you do to your own children, God will
forgive you? Is that why you persist with slowly brainwashing them so 
well? I just want to know... C'mon. Admit the sins of your way. :-)
HAVE YOU STOPPED BRAIN-WASHING YOUR KIDS?
STOP BEATING YOUR WIFE WHILE YOU'RE ON A WINNING STREAK!
>> If I kill a man, it was my free will.  If I unexpectedly
>> recover from a serious illness, is it a miracle?
>
>That depends.  Most people get well with no miracle.  On the other 
[trim]
>> There could be a God, in my opinion (I hate riding the fence.)  But
>> religion is still wrong.
>
>Christianity isn't a 'religion'.  It isn't believing a bunch of 
>doctrine, or following a set of rules.  Being a Christian is having a 
>personal relationship with Jesus Christ.  It is getting to know God on a 
>personal basis.
Christianity isn't a religion? I've been waiting for a good laugh to
come out of this thread. Thankfully, I wasn't disappointed.
>If you REALLY want to know if God is there, ask Him to show Himself to 
>you.  I did, and He proved Himself to me.  Millions of others have done 
>the same.  You must be sincere in your request, though.  You can't fool 
>God! ;)
>-- 
>Judson McClendon
I'm not here to fool God. I for one am a Scientist. I accept the
findings of Evolution as representative of historic truths/facts. I'm
not particularly religious. Yet I wonder about "God" and "Gods" on a
between the commercial breaks basis. And I'm also the one who gave the
Conservation of Reason Thought Experiment tangible and written form. To
me, this Thought Experiment points out weaknesses in ALL religions not
just any one in particular. And I have a calibrated feeling, I'm not
just fooling myself, that Scientists are ready to take the implied
challenge far more confidently than any followers of any known religious
text. And I'm still not here to fool myself.
But you seem to feel perfectly satisfied going
on day to day fooling others about "God". 
Perhaps the Laws of Physics are the one constant that Gods of all
religions need to contend with. Certainly, all the Deisms of mankind
would like to prove themselves as "true". But when you are playing with
a moving target, only Science gives us the Laws of Motion. If you want
to call Science a Religion, then you still don't accomplish anything for
any one specific religion of the many currently available.
Have you ever heard of Spinoza's God? If so, define SG to me in four
Latin lines of verse or less. Make me humble. Make me "believe".
Being a "follower" of evolution doesn't mean you are anti "God". That's
just rhetoric from the propaganda generating DREAM-Team at CS Headquarters.
Apparently image and Gallop-Polls ARE everything. I'm truly amazed how
seriously politicians, even the Religious Republicans, take the results
of polls. I couldn't help noticing that the Republican Convention
pointed out that 87% of Americans were Christians. Or nearly 87%. Is
this the beginnings of Intimidation?
   Paul |meforce>
Mahipal |meforce>	http://www.geocities.com/Athens/3178/
	... it took a team effort to right this ...

In article <4v76rm$dtf@skipper.netrail.net>, kaz@upx.net (KAZ Vorpal) writes:
>In Newsgroup alt.life-mars, Rick Dubbs (rdubbs@indy.net) wrote:
>>)>In Newsgroup alt.life-mars, George Ellis (OpsCon) (ellis@dfd.dlr.de) wrote:
>>)>
>>)[snip]
>>)>	Too bad we have NASA as a government space monopoly, instead of 
>>)>having had a free market in space as we've had in the Information 
>>)>Revolution...we'd be to Mars already, had that been the case.
>
>>)Unfortunately, there is so little possible return on the investment that 
>>)private enterprise is unlikely to undertake a trip to Mars.  NASA has funding 
>>)problems and image problems.  This "discovery of life on Mars" is the prefect 
>>)scenario to justify a manned mission.  Remotes won't do the job, and the 
>>)public is facinated by the possibility of ET.  Whoever NASA is paying for 
>>)marketing guidance might be up for a raise.
>
>	If people really thought it worthwhile, it could be privately 
>funded. If they do not find it worthwhile, then the government is acting 
>as a thief and economic rapist if it undertakes the mission on funds 
>stolen from those people.
small question then. just how many private companies were willing to 
help set up the interstate highways?  i do seem to recall that being
done by the fed and state governments, even though it was even stated
in the proposals for them that they would be clearly helpful in promoting
interstate commerce.
no private company is going to fund anything that they know the government
is also funding.  that would be stupid if you think about it.  also
a private company will not fund something unless it is profitable
to THEM, it is not a question of if it is worthwhile or not.  very
few companies can directly profit from space research so few help
fund it.  and BTW there are some companies that do help fund space
research, they happen to be the very same people that build planes
for the most part( gee now how can they be connected i wonder)
we have something that needs to be checked on.  just how much money
do you think it takes to send something to mars? if you are worried
about that much money, please realize there is more money wasted in
the production of one B2 than it would cost to send a probe to mars.
>
>	Remember, the money is /always/ that of the people. The 
>government cannot truely own property or any other wealth. It is not owed 
>money automatically, it must justify any money it is allowed to 
>temporarily use as an agent of the people.
umm i guess figuring out if  life is a unique event to earth or
not is not a useful thing to you....
--
buckysan: does anyone else like ani-mayhem? 
          http://www4.ncsu.edu/eos/users/j/jgward/WWW/animay.html
annapuma and unapumma in 96'
 " the realization that the pursuit of knowledge can be an
   end unto itself is the beginning and highest form of wisdom"

In article <4v76mf$dtf@skipper.netrail.net>, kaz@upx.net (KAZ Vorpal) writes:
>In Newsgroup alt.life-mars, RHA (ricka@praline.no.neosoft.com) wrote:
>>)In article <4ul6ug$6cp@skipper.netrail.net>, KAZ Vorpal  wrote:
>
>>)>	They would find a big hole, like a cave system. They claim they 
>>)>already know of one or two. And of course robots or automatons couldn't 
>>)>really be trusted in such a foreign environ, completely cut off by the 
>>)>rock from instruction...so humans would be necessary.
>>)>
>>)>	Too bad we have NASA as a government space monopoly, instead of 
>>)>having had a free market in space as we've had in the Information 
>>)>Revolution...we'd be to Mars already, had that been the case.
>
>>)  Who told you you can't build a spaceship? As far as I know it's
>>)  a free market. Build your ship, if you have problems getting
>>)  approvals for launch, hire a good lawyer. Please don't let the 
>>)  matter of a couple of billions of dollars come between your dream
>>)  and reality.
>
>>)  If you refuse to build that dreamship, then you're just the typical
>>)  liberloonarian, full of bluster and hot air.
>
>
>	As far as /you/ know, there is a free market, because you haven't 
>the slightest understanding of economics.
>
>	First, even if there were no regulation of private aerospace 
>activities, it would still not be a free market. There is a concept 
>beyond the view of most people called mandated competition. As long as 
>the government steals money from the poor to pay for their space 
>projects, they function as competitors against a private sector who must 
>actually /earn/ the money. The government, not having to earn it, is able 
>to pay more for less and return inferior results. This makes private 
>"competition" nearly impossible, the prices become insanely inflated.
you really need to look into the projected cost of the current
space projects.  they have droped the cost of the projects
signifcantly.  the little mars rover thing is supposed to only
be something $100 million to build, send and operate.  you she
the current director of NASA has this silly idea he came up with
like 10 or so years ago, it is called more for less.  if you knew
what the current planed projects NASA was doing were you would know
that he has suceding doing this.  and one more thing you really seem
to miss, the very companies that would have a logical reason to 
try and fund their own space projects are PARTNERS with NASA or
are supporting NASA openly.  why would a soda company want
to build rockets?
>
>	Second, there is of course enormous regulation of the industry, 
>and of every industry linked to it. Economic ignoramuses don't realize, 
>of course, but regulation is the creator of stagnation and monopoly. 
ok tell me just what would stop you from sending a rocket to the
moon assuming you made the proposed flight path known in advance.
there is nothing that i have ever heard of.
and why the big deal over NASA little budget when there are 
obvious over costs/made up costs in the defense budget that are larger
than NASA's budget to begin with.
and dont forget my friend it was NASA going to the moon that
drove the creation of computers as a useable tool.  in a wierd
way if we had not went to the moon the network would probably not
have been formed yet and definitly not the point that you can
in theory now annoy the whole world
--
buckysan: does anyone else like ani-mayhem? 
          http://www4.ncsu.edu/eos/users/j/jgward/WWW/animay.html
annapuma and unapumma in 96'
 " the realization that the pursuit of knowledge can be an
   end unto itself is the beginning and highest form of wisdom"

In article , Kim DeVaughn 
writes
>In article <1o4GxHA4VgGyEwlN@kennedym.demon.co.uk>,
>       Kennedy   wrote:
>|
>| In article ,
>|        Henry Spencer  writes
>|
>| >Logie Baird's mechanical scanning, while arguably the first television,
>| >was a technological dead end, utterly unrelated to modern video systems.
>| >The underlying technology of today's television came from RCA.
>| 
>| Utter crap.  What you are claiming is that any system which was
>| subsquently superceded by an electronic alternative or any other
>| technology was irrelevant, whether it layed the foundations which enable
>| the ultimate solution to be achieved or not.
>| 
>| The RCA work work was based on the developments at EMI, which were not
>| so different from Baird's system in principle, even if there was a major
>| difference in implementation.
>
>Not to put too fine a point on it, but one wonders if Baird might not
>have gotten his inspiration from watching a field being plowed.
>
>Afterall, most fields are plowed in a raster fashion.  
So?
Having the wisdom to observe something *natural* and envision how to use
that to solve a problem is the basic skill which has raised mankind
above the rest of the animal kingdom.  The point is that Baird did this
first, that is why he is credited with inventing television.  Source of
inspiration has no bearing on patent law, what matters is whether the
concept is novel.  All new ideas have some source of inspiration.  A
long time ago some enterprising individual observed the potters wheel
spinning and was inspired enough to turn two on their side and put an
axle between them.  Did the existence of the potters wheel and the
inspiration it provided make the invention of the cart any less novel?
>Different technology,
>different implementation, to be sure, but the same principle.
>
>So who "invented" the plow, and on whose shoulders did *they* stand ...?
>
To quote the big E on receipt of his Nobel Prize :
"I may have seen further than anyone else, but I stood on a lot of
peoples shoulder's to do so!"
If you are really concerned about this then I suppose all science is
plaigarism.  Adopt, Adapt, Improve.  ;=)
Wasn't there an old music hall song about Oxford scientific dons, with a
chorus along the line of :
          "Plaigarise, plaigarise.
           Let no one elses work evade your eyes."
>James Campbell ("Connections") would have loved this
Who He?
_______________________________________________________
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers

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.    

In article <4vau5a$tss_004@mel.dit.csiro.au>, d.jensen@geel.dwt.csiro.au
(Dennis Jensen) wrote:
>In article ,
>   singtech@teleport.com (Charles Cagle) wrote:
>>In article <4v8s23$f08_004@mel.dit.csiro.au>, d.jensen@geel.dwt.csiro.au
>>(Dennis Jensen) wrote:
>>
>>>In article ,
>>>   singtech@teleport.com (Charles Cagle) wrote:
>>>>In article <4uvc9b$489@post.gsfc.nasa.gov>, jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov
>>>>(James G. Acker) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Charles Cagle (singtech@teleport.com) wrote:
>>>>>: In article <4ut4j9$c5a@news.ccit.arizona.edu>,
>>>>>: bcadle@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (Brad J Cadle) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>: >        You mention above that you have seen nonsensical ideas emerge
>>>>>: >and accepted as Dogma.  Which ideas are you referring to in particular?
>>>>>: 
>>>>>: The BCS theory of superconduction.  The Big Bang.  Planetary accretion. 
>>>>>: Planetary Magnetic Field Theory.  Quantum Mechanics, General Relativity, 
>>>>>: Plate Subduction.
>>>>>
>>>>>        I give up...  Which of these ideas is "nonsensical", 
>>>>
>>>>All of them.  And since that much was made evident by the post; asking
>>>>again makes me think that you might want to become an apostle.  Is that
>>>>it?
>>>>
>>>>and 
>>>>>why do you classify it as such? 
>>>>
>>>>Oh, come on.  I'm not interested in educating you.  Study the history of
>>>>superconduction from the fifties on and you will see where top men were
>>>>making statements like 'Oh, I never pay attention to that theory because
>>>>its predictions are always wrong"  But when the Nobel was given to the
>>>>three in 1972 most dissension stopped and it became entrenched in acadmia
>>>>as dogma even though there was experimental data that demonstrated that
>>>>the BCS theory was clearly wrong. Only in the last several years have top
>>>>researchers been coming forth like ex-drunks at an AA meeting and fessing
>>>>up to the fact that they are practically clueless about
>>>>superconductivity.  This is the first good sign in the field in a long
>>>>time.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Here we go again. The BCS theory of superconductivity still works very well 
>>>for "conventional" superconductors, and phonon-electron interaction has been 
>>>the demonstrated mechanism in many experiments is just proof of this. 
>>
>>You are so utterly full of crap.  This is typical modern science.  Make
>>everything far more complex than it is.  Sounds like you invested a lot of
>>time learning the false crap and now can't get it out of your poor little
>>pumpkin head.  The important thing right about the BCS theory wasn't even
>>theory but rather experimental evidence that closely bound electron pairs
>[snip]
>
>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?
>It appears to me that when you do not have a good, logical argument, you 
>resort to personal invective. Maybe that is why there is so much of it in your 
>posts.
Actually, not Dennis, polite correspondence (which yours is not) gets
polite returns (which relatively speaking, this is).
-- 
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

tdp@ix.netcom.com(Tom Potter) writes:
>
>As I interpreted Cagle's original post, he was trying to make the point 
>that NASA hyping life on Mars, was more motivated by budget considerations,
>than science.
He did make such a point in his original post, and there is a substantial 
element of truth there.  Like the man said, "money makes them go up" and 
it is the NASA Administrator's job to secure the money.  If he did not 
promote successful research to get more money I would consider it to be 
malfeasance on his part. 
However, NASA did not hype it nearly as much as the media.  The NASA 
press release said "possibility [of] primitive life" and "evidence is 
exciting, even compelling, but not conclusive" and "demands further 
scientific investigation".  They even invited a nay-sayer critic to the 
press conference to provide an alternate point of view.  Much better 
done than any similar case of recent memory, such as the FNAL story 
on quark substructure for example. 
The objections to Cagle's posted remarks concern subsequent statements 
that called all of the scientists involved frauds of one sort or another, 
impugning all of their motives rather than just those of Goldin. 
-- 
 James A. Carr        |  Olympics report: whitewater slalom 
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/       |  and track&field; were awesome in  
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  person.  Page with some of my  
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  kayak photos will be coming soon. 

Frank_Hollis-1@sbphrd.com (Triple Quadrophenic) wrote:
} 
} 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.
singtech@teleport.com (Charles Cagle) writes:
>
>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.  Now which is more unlikely, these particular
>ratios or planets in the cosmos which might have life on them?  
You tell us.  At one time or another you have claimed some sort of 
expertise on planetary geology.  You have asserted that there are 
far more plausible explanations than a Martian origin for this 
meteorite.  Name some.  I will settle for two. 
>So we would have to look closer to home.  What do you know about isotope
>ratios, say, from 10 miles below the surface to the core of our own
>planet?  
You would have to come up with a plausible mechanism to transport those 
rocks from deep within the earth to Antarctica while never appearing 
from volcanoes or in the vicinity of impact craters.  Try again. 
>Or perhaps of any other planet in the solar system?  
If it is extraterrestrial, that is as significant as if it were Martian. 
>The real
>facts are that our data table is practically empty except for that info we
>have been able to gain from surface observations.  
It happens that the meteorite was found on the surface. 
-- 
 James A. Carr        |  Olympics report: whitewater slalom 
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/       |  and track&field; were awesome in  
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  person.  Page with some of my  
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  kayak photos will be coming soon. 

Does anybody know of any paleontology newsgroups or web pages, dinosaur
excavations, and schools that offer degrees or certification in fossil
preparation? I am a geology student and I am trying to focus on fossil
preparation and museum display.  I'm having a hard time finding info on
these two topics (my teachers cannot even point me in a direction). If
anybody has any info on these topics or paleontology in general please
email me, I would greatly appreciate it.  
                        Thank You, Monica Perry  mp8081@wcu.edu

jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) wrote:
...[snip]
>You would have to propose a model, and estimate the probability that 
>Viking found an atmosphere on Mars that is the same as the trapped 
>gases at the place you think this rock came from. 
..[snip]
>-- 
> James A. Carr        |  Olympics report: whitewater slalom 
>    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/       |  and track&field; were awesome in  
> Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  person.  Page with some of my  
> Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  kayak photos will be coming soon. 
James,
On the one hand, reports claim the meteor of current pubic interest is
remarkably unaltered internally, showing no signs of effects of a
major impact on Mars. Ergo, whatever is found today in the rock had to
have been carefully preserved intact along with all internal structure
and materials. On the other hand, however, it is said that the very
atmosphere of Mars has been entrained into the internal structure of
the meteor during the impact/ejection process.
Question: how do you entrain atmosphere deep into the internal
structure of a solid, dense rock without massively altering its
internal structure and without leaving any other artifact of the
entrainment other than the gases themselves? Did the gasses suddenly
and mysteriously just "appear" in the rock? How can a shock which is
strong enough to force atmosphere bubbles deep into a solid, dense
rock's internal structure not cause any noticeable effects or
alterations of the rock? (I say solid and dense meaning to indicate
that with carbonate materials and the metamorphic [intrusive?] nature
of the matrix allows a reasonable assumption of porosity to be in the
less-than-5% range, plus crack porosity of about an extra 2% or so....
and these values are probably alittle high.)
Question: If the Martian atmosphere entrained deep within the
structure of these meteors was entrained into the extant porosity
system of the rock material, why did the atmosphere not outgas from
that same porosity while the rock was between Mars and Earth for 16
million years? After all, gas which can be forced into a 7% (at best)
porosity system during an impact event (a very short duration event)
without changing the rock's structure can not be held very well in
place, eh? Easy in... easy out. And 16 million years in a vacuum is a
long time for gas not very well held in place to just sort of "hang
around", eh? 
Either air bubbles were created, extant microfractures were used, or
extant matrix porosity was used to entrain the Martian atmosphere. If
bubbles were created, then the structure of the rock had to experience
massive reconfiguration (for which there is apparently no evidence as
repeatedly stressed by the investigators). 
If the extant microfracture system (of which there is apparently no
evidence, again as repeatedly stressed by the investigators) of the
rock were used to entrain Martian atmosphere, then gasses _might_ be
trapped via this mechanism: At impact, enough force is applied to the
rock to stress the microfracture system to the extent that it "opened"
and allowed atmosphere inside. Portions of the system then collapsed
after the shock of the impact passed. But the investigators claim
there is no evidence of a shock to the rock which in any way could
have caused such a pervasive crack-opening experience. Also, the
outside of the rock has been melted during entry into our atmosphere,
and the entrained atmosphere thus must have been present from the time
of ejection.... which would mean that the microfracture system would
have had to have been "opened" from one end of the rock to at least
the center of the rock (one foot or more?). What type of force might
have caused such a selective application of energy? A smart impact?
How did it know to apply just enough force to open microcracks (of
which there is apparently no evidence) and shove Martian atmosphere
deep into the rock, and then allow the cracks to close, all without
effecting any other part of the rock in any way (ie, no concusion
shock features, no thermalization of any type, no mineralogical
modification, etc.)?
If the extant porosity system of the rock were used to entrain Martian
atmosphere, and if there were no alteration of the rock fabric as a
reasult of the ejecta event, then the porosity system would have had
to have been just as open _after_ the event as it was _before_. Again,
16 million years is a long time for an open porosity system to hold or
"trap" gasses which were shoved into it in a very short period of time
but _not_ with enough force to alter the structure of the rock or
effect it in any manner (remember that the investigators repeated
claim the meteor is remarkably uneffected by the supposed Martian
ejecta event).
I don't know what the gas constituents in the meteor or in Martian
atmosphere are, but I've got "the paper" and plan a hunting expedition
to the U of H librabry.... so I'll find out. What will I find do you
suppose? Do you know what are the composition of the meteor gasses as
compared to the Martian atmosphere?
Jeffrey L. Baldwin, Mind & Vision Computer Systems
"Intelligent Processing Systems for the Energy Industry"
Voice/Fax/Data: (713) 550-4534     email: mvcs@gramercy.ios.com
http://www.worldenergy.solutions/WorldEnergy/Companies/Mind&Vision;/Mind&Vision.HTML;

A guess might be:
Thom, W.T. Jr., 1923, Oil and gas prospects in and near the 
   Crow Indian Reservation, Montana: U.S. Geological Survey
   Bulletin 736-B, p. 35-53.
You may also want to check to see if the article below has any references.
Hartman, J.H., and Krause, D.W., 1993, Cretaceous and Paleocene stratigraphy 
and paleontology of the Shawmut Anticline and the Crazy Mountains Basin, 
Montana--road log and overview of recent investigations, in Energy and 
Mineral Resources of Central Montana: Montana Geological Society, 1993
field conference guidebook, p. 71-84. 
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?  
-- 
Daniel T. Snyder   U.S. Geological Survey                     (503) 251-3287
Water Resources Division--Oregon District                  dtsnyder@usgs.gov
This message is being posted to obtain or provide technical information
relating to my duties at the U.S. Geological Survey.

Michael L. Siemon wrote:
> 
> In article <4utn8n$jjm@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>, tomspain@ix.netcom.com
> (Tom Spain) wrote:
> 
>         [in response to someone...]
> 
> +>>     I am a physicist and theologian by degrees.  :-)
> +
> +>I don't think I'll let my kids be taught Biology by you.
> +
> +Or physics either, for that matter.
> 
> Fegh; what sort of mindless and ill-conceived bias are *you*
> operating on, that you cannot cope with a physicist who is
> (presumably! :-)) both a believer and one who thinks about
> that (i.e., a theologian.)  Now, it makes some sense to take
> that self-description as no recommendation for teaching biology;
> but I have to ask -- would you have the same knee-jerk reaction
> to a theistic biologist? and if so, can you honestly *defend*
> such a position, or are you just being a total dork?
The majority of the Christians believe in the Evolutionary Theory, 
including Christians who are Biologists. The issue is with a tiny 
minority of ignorant creationist fundamentalists who think they can do 
Science by saying "God did it". All Scientific progress will be halted if 
ignorant people are put in charge of teaching Science.
> --
> Michael L. Siemon                             mls@panix.com
> 
>         "sempiternal, though sodden towards sundown."

Paul J. Gans wrote:
> 
>       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)?
Probably within a few million years of the end of the great bombardment
period, perhaps 4 billion years ago.
Not all eclipses are total, even today.  We get annular eclipses if they
happen at the outer parts of the Earth's orbital ellipse.  The Sun's
diameter changes, but not by enough to affect eclipses.
The theory about the Moon that I find most interesting is the notion
that the pumping action of the tides was responsible for life.
-- 
Steve Geller

Sorry for quoting a quote, but my newserver had already cycled the
original.
Thomas Scharle wrote:
> 
> 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...]
The reason nobody(?) crossed the ocean before Columbus did was because
of lack of navigation and ship-design technology.  Sailing in the 1400's
was bloody dangerous, and you didn't just go flitting off into the open
ocean without charts and a way to tell where you were.
It wasn't until around the end of the 1400's that accurate instruments
and better designed ships started to show up (first with the Portuguese)
that could make an open ocean voyage into uncharted waters into a
"manageable" risk. 
--
Jason E. Steele  (jesteele@ocean.st.usm.edu)
University of Southern Missippi

On Wed, 21 Aug 1996, Dennis Jensen wrote:
> It was certainly not Ptolemy, who believed the earth to be flat. It was 
> actually Eratosthenes who calculated the circumference of the earth. If you 
> are interested in how he did this, I will let you know.
Ptolemy certainly did not believe the earth to be flat.  The silly belief 
commonly attributed to him is that the earth is the center of the 
universe, though Duhem suggests that even that may be less than 
completely fair.
---
Aaron Boyden
"Any competent philosopher who does not understand something will take care 
not to understand anything else whereby it might be explained."  -David Lewis 

In article <321B5F2D.38DBBA97@ocean.st.usm.edu>, "Jason E. Steele"  writes:
	... snip ...
>
>The reason nobody(?) crossed the ocean before Columbus did was because
>of lack of navigation and ship-design technology.  Sailing in the 1400's
>was bloody dangerous, and you didn't just go flitting off into the open
>ocean without charts and a way to tell where you were.
>
>It wasn't until around the end of the 1400's that accurate instruments
>and better designed ships started to show up (first with the Portuguese)
>that could make an open ocean voyage into uncharted waters into a
>"manageable" risk. 
Yep.  and even this 'manageable" risk was still very high.  It is 
worth mentioning that Magellan, for example,  started his journey with 
5 ships and upwards of 250 people.  Only one ship with 16 people came 
back.  Magellan wasn't among these 16.
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
further responding to this thread. The subject matter is WAY outside the
scope of this group. We appreciate your help in keeping the usenet
useable.
Tim

James G. Acker wrote:
> 
> "Lord Garth" (danger@provide.net) wrote:
> 
> : In all seriousness can anybody identify a current complex life form in a
> : transitional state. I would think that we have many examples of this
> : phenomenon in our midst out of the tens of million different species on our
> : planet. Please do not cite single celled life forms since there is no
> : question that these mutate to adapt to their surroundings. I am looking for
> : something like monkeys with feathers, dogs with scales, birds that spin
> : webs and have eight legs, ...etc.
> 
>         My favorite current transitional life forms are the various
> species of penguins.
> 
> ===============================================
> |  James G. Acker                             |
> |  REPLY TO:   jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov  |
> ===============================================
> All comments are the personal opinion of the writer
> and do not constitute policy and/or opinion of government
> or corporate entities.
OK

Hello Brian
(trin@one.net) ## 20 Aug 96 ##
>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?
>
Keeping all questions open. Do not accept answers - or if you accept them  
keeep in mind that the validity of answers is very limited.
"Jedes Ding ist sein Gegenteil"  (Nietzsche)
mit freundlichem Grusse:                     Bernd
mintaka@toppoint.de..........................(bkassler@ploe.comcity.de)
-  erratic othography is intended to contribute to common amusement  -
My opinions are my own    -    not those of my Usenet service providers.

 "GIS-Based Ground Water Flow Modeling"
 Dates: October 14-18, 1996
 Cost: $795
 Deadline: September 27, 1996
 Location:
 Ground Water Institute
 The University of Memphis
 Memphis, Tennessee 38152
 A 5-day continuing education class dealing with the integration of
 ARC/INFO and MODFLOW.  Class participants will use ModelGIS (a commercially
 available interface developed by Geotrans, Inc. in Sterling, Virginia)
 and AML programs developed by the Ground Water Institute.
 Further Information can be obtained from http://gwint1.gwi.memphis.edu
 under the "Continuing Education Program" link or via e-mail to
 jamie@ce5.gwi.memphis.edu or clay@geotrans.com, or ddavis@geotrans.com
 For more information on ModelGIS visit: http://www.geotrans.com
 For more information on ARC/INFO visit: http://www.esri.com
 ARC/INFO is a registered trademark of Environmental Systems Research
 Institute, Inc.
 ModelGIS is a registered trademark of GeoTrans, Inc.

Triple Quadrophenic (Frank_Hollis-1@sbphrd.com.see-sig) wrote:
: 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!!!
Good grief guys, Jim *isn't* an astronomer.   Further, NASA is not
an astronomical research organization.  The question really has
to do with the archaeomechanics of the solar system.  It involves
knowing the sun's apparent diameter throughout history (it *has*
varied) and the rate of recession of the moon from the earth.  I 
strongly suspect that there are only a few people on earth who could 
answer Jim's question off the top of their heads.
Why not stop and think before popping off?
       ------ Paul J. Gans  [gans@scholar.chem.nyu.edu]