Newsgroup sci.geo.geology 31674

Directory

Richard Moss wrote:
> 
> Hi ya,
> 
> hope someone hears this (looks like this newsgroup has gone the way of
> many ...)
> 
> I just got back from holidays, where I collected several nice rocks
> from streams that look great when wet.  Is there any stuff (some sort
> of laquer perhaps) that you can paint them with, or soak them in, so
> they'll look "wet" all the time?
> 
> thanks,
> 
> Richard
A good thick coat or two of polyurethane works well - especially good for 
cut surfaces, 'cause it won't scratch whatever you set it on for display.
All the Best...

On 8/21/96 12:31AM, in message 
, Kennedy 
 wrote:
> In article , Sean Webb
>  writes
> >On 8/19/96 2:20AM, in message 
> >, Kennedy 
> > wrote:
> >
> >> >Charles Cagle wrote:
> >> >> 
> >> >[A lot of drivel deleted]
> >> >
> >> >> 
> >> >>  (I am not decrying US scientistsm,
> >> >> >who are no worse or no better than most other scientists. I just don't 
> >like
> >> >> >the blanket "everybody follows the US because we are so grat" 
> mentality).
> >> >> 
> >> >> Now I know I've hooked one full of ignorant prattle.  You have let your
> >> >> national pride set your mouth in motion without your brain being in gear.
> >> >> That's what makes for easy fishing by the way.  Listen Aussie, go to your
> >> >> library and see if you can figure out just how many things which are
> >> >> taught in modern physics were purely Australian inventions compared to,
> >> >> say, purely American.  Or let's talk modern technology like the 
> >> 
> >> >telephone,
> >> Alexander Graham Bell : Scotland
> >> 
> >> >> motion pictures, 
> >> Louis & Auguste Lumiere : France
> >> 
> >> >television,
> >> John Logie Baird : Scotland
> >> 
> >> > transistors,
> >> William Bradford Shockley : England.
> >> John Bardeen : US
> >> Walter Brattain : China 
> >> 
> >> Ain't found the US as the pure - or even prime - inventors of any of the
> >> modern technology you refer to.  
> >> 
> >> Maybe the reason most of the great scientists in the US are foreigners
> >> is because the US wastes most of its eduacation budget trying to teach
> >> DICKHEADS LIKE YOU! 
> >> _______________________________________________________
> >> Kennedy
> >> Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
> >> A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
> >> Python Philosophers
> >
> >You forgot nicolas Tesla !!
> >
> >father of the 20th century. Did most of his work in the USA but was most 
> >definately not american. The first person ever to turn down a scientific nobel 
> >prize.
> >
> >The american don't invent , they buy the brains.
> >
> >The american space program ?
> >
> >Von Braun and his cronies courtesy of Germany.
> >
> >Einstein ?
> >
> >Why are so many forgein people in the states doing MOST of the work.
> >Cause they have the bucks , nothing else.
> >
> >As for american schooling ? backward !!
> >
> >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.
> >
> >The american schooling system classes below 85 IQ as being below entry 
> level to 
> >state schools , Dooh !!
> >
> >Sean Webb
> >
> I think it is very difficult and misleading to make comparisons between
> education systems based on the number of years taken to obtain a certain
> grade or qualification.  Even in the UK you will find a large variation
> in the time required to obtain PhD's and even first degree's, depending
> on the content and the amount of field work or industrial placement
> involved.  Taking 5 years to obtain a doctorate does not mean that you
> are starting from a lower level than someone who takes 3 years, neither
> does it mean that you obtain a higher level - it all depends on how the
> educational programme is structured, and the culture under which it is
> considered.
> 
> The real reason that the majority of Americans are thick compared to
> their European and Far Eastern equivalents is that the media and culture
> which dominates their lives caters purely for the lowest common
> denominator and is driven by bean counters considering things like the
> ratings indices.  In the UK a large percentage of the TV airtime, for
> example, is educational, whether this is science and arts programming,
> news and documentary, historical drama or cultural awareness.  In the US
> this medium is virtually devoted to the entertainment of the mindless
> masses.  The same can be said for almost all of the media influences
> that the typical American is subjected to.  To an outsider the US media
> appears as an instrument for subduing the population at large.
> 
> 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.
> 
> Under similar circumstances, how long would it have taken you to get a
> PhD ?
> _______________________________________________________
> Kennedy
> Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
> A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
> Python Philosophers
probably the same.
But the problem is that they seem to think they are ahead of everyone else.
But i suppose , that when the average american isn't aware of whats going on in 
the next state , you can't expect them to be any different.
If they rely on CNN which is far from accurate and most certainly not un-biased , 
they will most certainly think that america is the best & most knowledgable
Trouble is that they are largely ignorant of what goes on in the rest of the world , 
but try to interfere eveywhere else based on the limited and distorted information 
that they do get. Thats how they have screwed up Vietnam, Bosnia ,Grenada , 
Cambodia , South Africa etc etc
Sean Webb

In article , Sean Webb
 writes
>
>
>how many americans know where the netherlands are ??
>
I heard some disturbing rumours a while back about the percentage of
American graduates who couldnt point to the USA on a world map...never
mind the netherlands... 20% I think it was...
Almighty, Inviolate, and Omnipresent  -  Physics.
        Squint.

sci.physics is getting annoyed with me, so I deleted them from the
distribution
trin@one.net writes:
> daakers@ix.netcom.com (Carmen Toledo) wrote:
> 
> >In <01bb8734$06950820$a1cc9dcc@creiser.idsonline.com> "Chris A Reiser"
> > writes: 
> >>
> >...[snip]
> 
> >>The inherent flaw in creationism is that it denies reality/truth.
well a better way of putting it is that it denies physical evidence.
> >    Which truth?  Physical laws?  Moral absolutes?
> 
> The truth that holds you in your chair as you type.  Or does God
> control gravity?  Care to ask him to once and for all prove to
> non-believers his existance by turning off gravity for a while?
He already did something on this order once, held the earth still (well 
the Bible describes it as holding the Sun in the same place in the sky)
Actually when you consider the difficulties of dealing with the angular
momentum of the earth and atmosphere, and the momentum of all the various
objects on the surface of the earth... that is even more impressive than
turning off gravity.
Which is why I claim He probably just bent light a bit... which if one 
takes a GR viewpoint is direct manipulation of gravity, ha! :)
> >    If evolution is true, then what?  Can you bring back the dead?
I honestly don't understand the relavence of this statment.
> Brian
> 
Robert

Jeff Baldwin (mvcs@gramercy.ios.com) wrote:
: 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]
: 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? 
Jeff,
see the thread in this ng written by Jim Head--he explains very carefully
the shock and atmospheric entrainment arguments.  The shortanswer is
that there are degrees of shock, and just because a meteorite was not
melted, vaporized, or even highly shocked as a whole while leaving 
the planetary surface doesn't mean that it is entirely pristine.
Some SNC's have mild shock features and some have entrained melt
blebs.  It is these bits of melt that have atmospheric air bubbles
trapped in them, and the blebs in turn are trapped in the rock.
This is the way we can analyze the atmospheric composition even though
the overall rock is RELATIVELY unshocked.
*B*
--
              Barbara Cohen
   Cosmochemical Cocktail Mixer, PhD to be
   ---------------------------------------
    For a real sweet time, call C6 H12 O6.

robi@avmin.co.za (Rob Ingram) wrote:
>I am all in favour of preserving this group as a forum for scientific
>discussion. If it requires a moderator so be it!
>Rob Ingram 
>
Count me in!

In article <4vfh0r$fcn@news.cc.utah.edu>, palane@cpt1.physics.utah.edu (Paul A. Lane) writes:
> 
> 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.
excuse me,,, i am not american. i am cuban, but i need to put in my 2 pennies
worth. actually in a form of a question...
if americans are dumb...how come this is the best country in the world? how come
everybody wants and dies to come to america? how come everybody wants to live the
american dream? how come america is the most powerful nation in the world?
does not sound dumb to me...
rp
> 
> 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)
> 
> 
-- 
 Intel, Corp.
 5000 W. Chandler Blvd.
 Chandler, AZ  85226

In Newsgroup alt.life-mars, Martin Leese - OMG (mleese@hudson.CS.unb.ca) wrote:
>)On 21 Aug 1996 14:34:51 GMT KAZ Vorpal (kaz@upx.net) wrote:
>)>> In Newsgroup alt.life-mars, Zepp (zepp@snowcrest.net) wrote:
>)>> >)Bwaa-ha-ha-ha-ha!!  Geez, Kaz, you have got to be kidding, right?  
>)>> >)Regulation is the one thing that keeps the multinationals from simply moving 
>)>> >)in and declaring that they own us!!  We tried deregulating in the twenties 
>)>> 	Actually, the opposite is true. Regulations are /protection/ to 
>)>> the big corporations. Are you /really/ so naive as to think that they 
>)...
>)As this no longer has anything to do with the newsgroups it is being
>)posted to, perhaps you would be so kind as to continue it by e-mail.
>)Many thanks,
>)Everyone else on:
>)sci.astro
>)alt.sci.planetary
>)sci.astro.amateur
>)sci.bio
>)sci.geo.geology
>)sci.bio.paleontology
>)alt.life-mars
	I didn't realize they had voted for you unanimously.
	Or did some magical spirit come to you and say; 
     "You, Martin, are anal-retentive enough for me to annoint as 
      official spokesmen of all anal-retentive whiners who can't skip 
      threads they don't want to read. Go forth to these seven 
      newsgroups, whose members unanimously are thus anal-retentive, and 
      speak you unto the blasphemers who oppose socialism therein, until 
      they are silenced by your righteous indignation!"
--
Words of the Sentient:
Steve Forbes' entry into the Republican race for president deserves a warm 
welcome from anyone who cares about prosperity. At last, the crowded field 
contains someone who's making growth the centerpiece of his campaign. [He is] 
the only candidate willing to fight head-on the absurd rules and procedures 
that the Washington establishment uses to makes significant tax reduction 
next to impossible. -- Editorial  Investor's Business Daily (9/25/95) 
       mailto:kaz@upx.net | http://www.kaz.org/ | telnet://umb.upx.net:22
       See also #Polyamory, #Heinlein, and #Libertarian on the Undernet...

Greetings form Oak Ridge, Tennessee ...
I'm part of a team of mathematicians, physicists, and engineers at Oak Ridge 
National Laboratory in Oak Ridge. Over the years, we've developed a variety of 
analysis tools to characterize, control, and predict the behavior of nonlinear 
and chaotic processes. The idea of applying these techniques to seismic (or 
other geophysical) data recently occurred to us, for the purpose of 
predicting earthquakes. We've done this previously (for example) in analyzing 
brain waves for predicting epileptic seizures. Since we are experts in the use 
of our methods, but not in geology or earthquakes, we need advice on the 
following questions.
1) What has been done on chaotic time series analysis of seismic (and other 
   geophysical data) to characterize and predict earthquakes? Can you provide 
   references to specific articles or  experts' names (+ how to contact them)?
2) Where can we get high quality seismic (and other geophysical) data in 
   digital form? We probably will need a long set of data (hours to days prior 
   to an important event) to see how far back we can see nonlinear precursors. 
3) Do you know experts who can collaborate with us?
4) What is the best data to analyze? From a perusal earthquake liteature, the 
   following kinds of data are available at various local sites ...
   acceleration and velocity in three orthogonal directions (seismic data)
   magnetic field vector
   electric field vector
   ground deformation vector
   radon escape
   ground temperature
   gas/chemical emissions
   ground currents.
   Are there other useful quantities?
Please e-mail your responses to me at hivelylm@ornl.gov. Thanks! - Lee
Dr. Lee M. Hively
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
P.O. Box 2009
Oak Ridge, TN  37831-8066
423-574-7188 (office)
423-574-8481 (fax)
hivelylm@ornl.gov

In article <4vgaca$1n8@news.nyu.edu>, gans@scholar.nyu.edu says...
>
>Triple Quadrophenic (Frank_Hollis-1@sbphrd.com.see-sig) wrote:
>: In article <4vco29$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)?
[deletions]
>Good grief guys, Jim *isn't* an astronomer.   Further, NASA is not
	That's the truth.
>an astronomical research organization.  The question really has
	It does however, employ astronomers.
>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.
	Thanks, Paul.  Actually, no one has answered the question
yet (though I did learn roughly when total solar eclipses would
end).  However, I received a local name that may be able to 
help out.
	It's an interesting window of opportunity, IMO.  However,
until I know about when they started, I can't judge how remarkable
the window of opportunity is.
	I have a related question, but this one is probably 
answerable by my own research.  If someone lives 70 years and never
travels more than 15 miles from their birthplace, what are the 
chances they would witness a total solar eclipse?
-------------------------------------------------------------------
WELCOME to the signature file for James G. Acker!
--->  jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov
As always, all comments are solely the opinion OF
the author and are NOT to be construed IN ANY SHAPE 
OR FORM as the opinion, policy, or guiding principle of 
ANY government organization or corporate entity.
*THANK YOU for your cooperation.*
-----------------------------------------------------------------

schimmri@dune (Steven H. Schimmrich) wrote:
>  I've gotten to the point where I don't even want to bother reading all
>the off-topic drivel posted here all the time. 
>read this group because it's supposed to be a science group about geology.
>It's not a place for schizophrenics to post prayers to atoms, it's not a 
>place for religion bashing by posts with 14 different newsgroups in the To:
>line.
>  I think it might be time to set up a moderated newsgroup for geology.  Is
>anyone interested in getting this off the ground?  Maybe then we can have
>geologists, and those interested in geology, discussing geological topics!
>What a novel concept for a geology newsgroup!
somebody else wrote:
>Are we going to have to wait for sci.chem, sci.physics and a host of others to be totally
>unreadable before anything is done?
It sure seems to me that Archimedes Plutonium does have the signs of
schizophrenia. An excess of one neurotransmitter that developes at an
adult age. It is too bad as it appears that he would have been a very
interesting and productive person otherwise. Some people say ignore
him, others say use a killfile. However, his use of bandwidth and the
wide distribution of his postings are to an extent that these
responses are less that adequate.
He started on internet in Aug 93, and since the start of the archives
in March 95 to 95/08/13 he has authoured 6,290 posts in 503 days for
an average of 12.5 posts per day!
But what has been much more disruptive is all of the religious 
crossposting, which is far greater in volume and number of people
involved. What is disappointing is that these threads are started by
people who think that the religious content is an acceptable excuse
for being rude, and the followups are perpetuated by participants
which are sane adults who should know better.
Currently the geology newgroup is in a total mess. What are the
options available for moderation? What about the retromoderation that
is being discussed for sci.bio.paleontology? Are there subscribers to
this group that would be willing to act as moderators? And like Steve
wrote is there somebody who will take on the project of changing this
to a moderated newsgroup?
BT wrote:
>Otherwise today's sci.geo.geology is mulch for tomorrow's crop.
Yep, this has been a good newsgroup but it's time for a rebuild.

PLEASE remove sci.astro.amateur from your newsgroup header before
further resopnding to this thread. The subject matter is WAY outside the
scope of the group. Thank you for helping to keep the usenet useable.
Tim

I would like to purchase 1+ of Pennwells "Glossary of the Petroleum Industry.  
English/Spanish and Spanish/English. 2nd Edition, 1982
Please e-mail dougr@gcomm.com if you have a copy you would like to sell.
Thanks,
Doug

Gregory Snyder wrote:
> 
> 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.
Huh?  Gregory, is english your native language?
Michael A. Camann                  camann@lvc.edu
Dept. of Biology                   (717) 867-6172 voice
Lebanon Valley College             (717) 867-6075 FAX
Annville. PA  17003

In article <4vhjll$s3u@dole.uninett.no>, onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam) writes:
>
>>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.
>
>
>This shows that you have no fundamental understanding of mathematics whatsoever.
>There is a general conception that mathematics is an intermediate between
>empirical and fantasmic structures. These "rules" that you call them are not
>chosen randomly. They are very much inspired by the structure of our own
>perception, consciousness and language, which in turn was shaped by the world
>we live in. A set, for instance, isn't just an arbitrary concept. It's a concept
>that tries to capture the essence of conceptual structure. Similarly, geometry is
>strongly inspired by what we see. The world appears geometrical to us and this
>has inspired mathematicians to abstract what they have seen into a language:
>geometry.
>
Hm, partly true but not quite.  It is true that as mathematics 
developed, the rules weren't chosen randomly.  It is also true that 
there is nothing in mathematics to prohibit you from chosing different 
axioms each time, as long as consistency is maintained.  So it is 
perfectly possible to play the game of "lets see what follows from 
such and such axioms" without any regard as to whether these axioms 
correspond to anything in the real world, and lots of this is being 
done.  The eternally amazing fact is that lots of what's being 
developed as a pure mental game turns out to be relevant to the real 
world, after all.
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

Jim Grant  wrote:

>Count me in that minority too, then! Though an enormous number of 
>Catholics don't know it, everything science discovers is considered by 
>the Church to be consistent with Church teaching. 
Probably, but only in due time!
Wasn't it about 500 years after Galileo's discoveries that he was 
officially vindicated by the Church of Rome?
>One of the greatest 
>evolutionists, in fact, was Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, a Jesuit priest, 
>paleontologist and philosopher. He wrote many books ("The Phenomenon of 
>Man" and "The Future of Man", to name two of the better known ones) 
>examining evolution as consistent with Christianity. And he died before 
>Vatican II!
And the Church didn't like him a bit!
In 1926, he was expelled from the Catholic Institute in Paris and was 
"exiled" to China until 1946.
After he completed his manuscript "The Phenomenon of Man", he was refused 
permission by the Church to publish it. It was not until after his death 
when this manuscript was published.
>Astronomers at the Vatican Observatory were ecstatic when news of life on 
>Mars was announced this week, acclaiming it as further testament to God's 
>genius (to use a grossly understated term).
Oh, sure they were "ecstatic"!
What should have been their reaction? Summon the NASA scientists to Rome 
to face an Inquisition?
Bernie

On 8/20/96 7:51PM, in message , 
Andy Newman  wrote:
> In article , Sean Webb
>  writes
> >
> >
> >how many americans know where the netherlands are ??
> >
> 
> I heard some disturbing rumours a while back about the percentage of
> American graduates who couldnt point to the USA on a world map...never
> mind the netherlands... 20% I think it was...
> 
> Almighty, Inviolate, and Omnipresent  -  Physics.
>         Squint.
They conducted a test some years back , late 80's i think. They showed an outline 
Map of europe & GB and asked them to mark where london would be.
Less than 20% were any where near close.
Sean Webb
'Ignorance is bliss provided to keep it to yourself'

In article <4vba6q$d6j@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
drturi  wrote:
>In article <4vattm$ioe@pyrtech.mis.pyramid.com>, 
>lstowell@pyrtech.mis.pyramid.com says...
>>
[ snip ]
>Another pin head, usenet cruiser who has the audacity to assumes that 
>he is the only one
>in the entire universe.  Where the hell are you coming from ?  --with 
>such an archaic
[ diatribe snipped ]
Looks like drturi got upset this time...
Thanks for the pointer to the web page, though - it finally answered where
the "dr." came from:
"In January 1993 he earned his Doctorate of Metaphysics and graduated from the 
Universal Life Church Institute in Sacramento, California."
Wow.  Such resounding credentials!  Now I *know* he's The Real Thing!  He must have
paid at least $9.95 for that "doctorate"!
Kevin Quinn
I speak for no one save myself.

In article <4vic6o$aja@times.tfs.com>, kquinn@tfs.com says...
>
>In article <4vba6q$d6j@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
>drturi  wrote:
>>In article <4vattm$ioe@pyrtech.mis.pyramid.com>, 
>>lstowell@pyrtech.mis.pyramid.com says...
>>>
>
>[ snip ]
>
>>Another pin head, usenet cruiser who has the audacity to assumes 
that 
>>he is the only one
>>in the entire universe.  Where the hell are you coming from ?  
--with 
>>such an archaic
>
>[ diatribe snipped ]
>
>Looks like drturi got upset this time...
>
>Thanks for the pointer to the web page, though - it finally answered 
where
>the "dr." came from:
>
>"In January 1993 he earned his Doctorate of Metaphysics and graduated 
from the 
>Universal Life Church Institute in Sacramento, California."
Yes and this great institution is also recognized by the California 
Board of Education!.  
>
>Wow.  Such resounding credentials!  Now I *know* he's The Real Thing! 
 He must have
>paid at least $9.95 for that "doctorate"!
>
>
>Kevin Quinn
>I speak for no one save myself.
RICHTER SAID  -- .
.
Predictions based on positions of the sun and moon have to be regarded 
a trifle more
seriously, since there is evidence that tidal forces may occasionally 
act as triggers for
earthquakes otherwise on the point of taking place; in this way the 
date and hours of
occurrence  ( occurrence -two r's) may show a  slight statistical 
correlation with the
tides.
MEMO OF THE  POST -
Path: netnews.worldnet.att.net!newsadm
From: Dr.Turi@worldnet.att.net (drturi)
Newsgroups: ca.earthquakes
Subject: Next window Aug. 19th, 1996
Date: 16 Aug 1996 02:36:34 GMT
This theory is at an early stage and is  EXPERIMENTAL only.
Next window is for Aug.19th, 1996- A window is operational 1200 hours 
centering the given date and sometimes a few hours before and after 
the window - 
Thus 1200 Aug. 18th through 1200 hours Aug.20th - UTC is used.  This 
theory is not 
yet recognized by the scientific community or USGS and indicate only 
the possibility for 
UNUSUAL and HIGH seismic activity as experienced with Mammoth over 150 
quakes, 
Hawaii swarm (on the windows of July 30th and Aug. 24th).
Previous windows (in many occasions) have accurately pin pointed 
earthquakes of a 
minimum of 6.0 and well above 6.5 including a variety of nature 
devastative forces 
leading to many thousands of people to relocate.   " As above as 
below", everything is 
interrelated,  the windows do not stop at earthquakes probability but 
include different
ways of  mother nature expressing herself generating dramatic news.  
This negative
celestial energy also affects sophisticated electronics equipments 
planes/ boats/ trains/
cars/ airport traffic control towers and electronics failures thus 
lost of general power as
experienced with both dramatic 7-state blackout that struck on  my 
windows  (last one)
was for August 10 at 3:45 PM as the power was lost  from Canada to 
Mexico and in WA,
OR, CA, NV, AZ, ID and TX! . Those windows do also affects our 
personal computer
(brain) reacting with the subtle but real outside stimuli.  Thus under 
those windows, the
worse elements of our society  will respond and act out (robotic 
expressions) the will of
the cosmos "Rodney King dilemma, Los Angeles riots etc. producing 
dramatic news with
the police force".
sample
USGS - Message -ID: DG1t4Hv@goodnet.com -sender
news@goodnet.com (News Administrator) -Dr. Turi 
Newsgroups
-  sci.geo,sci.geo.geology,ca.earthquakes,hkbu,geog.maps - WEEKLY USGS 
Quake
Report 9/28-10/4/95 CA. Seismology Institute - in 
articleDG1t4H.v@goodnet.com>Oct
6h, 1995 drturi@goodnet.com says...
>From Dr. Turi - Dear Sirs: -  On Oct.8th and Oct.9th a very unusual 
seismic activity
will be noticeable and will produce many quakes above 6.1. More 
information are
available pertaining to my method if requested.  
Respectfully
Dr. Turi        
SUBJECT: RE:  Weekly USGS Quake Report
Full proofs of predictions:  
Oct. 8th a 7.0 EARTHQUAKE HIT SUMATRA (INDONESIAN ISLANDS)
Oct. 9th a 7.6 EARTHQUAKE HIT MEXICO -ARIZONA AMTRAK TRAIN
TERRORIST ATTACK ON THE POSTED "WINDOW" - A VOLCANOE ERUPTED
ON THE SIBERIAN COAST AND THREE TORNADOES HAPPENED "MID-WEST" 
ON THOSE DAYS.

Ricardo Polo~ wrote:
> excuse me,,, i am not american. i am cuban, but i need to put in my 2 pennies
> worth. actually in a form of a question...
> 
> if americans are dumb...how come this is the best country in the world? 
It's not.
That isn't to say it's not one of the better places to live,
but there are so many criteria to judge a country on that
IMHO it's impossible to say that one country is _the_ best.
> how come
> everybody wants and dies to come to america? 
They don't. 
Maybe in Cuba, a high % of people do want to come to the USA,
but that doesn't mean everybody, everywhere feels the same way.
Back in Europe I knew people who wanted to live in the USA,
people who would never want to live there, people who lived
there and moved back, and so on...
> how come everybody wants to live the
> american dream? 
Again, they don't. And let's face it, the greater % of
US Amercians have little chance of living it anyway :) 
>how come america is the most powerful nation in the world?
Because it's one of the biggest. Gee, look! The USA is
more powerful than Belgium. And what sort of "power" are we
talking? Militaay? Economical? Political?
> does not sound dumb to me...
Sounds like you're just reciting the same tired old rhetoric 
to me and verging on nationalism. The USA might
be your idea of heaven, but others have different ideas. 
It's a big world out there :)

  IMHO, it would be very prudent to establish a lunar base 
>first, at least to learn the nature of having a non-self-sufficient outpost
>off-planet, and possibly to use as a launch site for further interplanetary 
>missions.
>=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+= The best lack all conviction, 
>They don't pay me enough| bgreene@scf.usc.edu | while the worst/ Are full of 
>to speak their opinions!|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| passionate intensity.
>+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=finger me for GC3.1=+  - Yeats, "The Second Coming"
   This is also the role of the space station, yes? At least the first
part, they cut back on the second part.
Adam Bates

In article <4vcgt6$ghf@post.gsfc.nasa.gov>, jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov
(James G. Acker) wrote:
>In article , 
>singtech@teleport.com says...
>>
>>In article <4va1ps$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 guess my points about falsification must have been 
>agreeable to you.
>        What do you mean by "differentiation of matter"?
I mean the distinct appearance of particles from the so-called point of
beginning of the expansion so that matter became differentiated into
separate species, etc.
>  As
>for the vacuum energy oscillation, it wasn't MY presupposition.
>I was quoting from a magazine article.  But until you help me out
>a little by defining your terms (or abandon all hope and call me
>an imbecile because I can't understand your terminology), then
>both of them are gobbledygook.  I can point you to the article after
>a bit of effort if you want to critique it.
>
>
>>>        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 remanents of processes we are yet to discover.
>
>        That isn't the way science is done (at least in the most
>common practice of it).  An anomaly that is unexplainable in current
>theory is the starting point for a new interpretation and a new
>theoretical framework.  Hoyle, for example, has attempted to 
>explain the observations in a modified steady-state universe 
>formulation.  If someone just throws tomatoes, then they're just
>a tomato-thrower. They aren't adding to the discussion or to the 
>progress of science.  So I'd be interested in a suitable alternate
>cosmology.
>
But you should consider what I had written in another post that one may
point out an obvious flaw in a theory which then establishes it as false
but is not required at that same time to provide a replacement.  It isn't
always the 'new king' which has killed old one.  This erroneous assumption
is what is implied in your tomato-thrower analogy.  The tomato-thrower
also performs a useful function in science by not being a me too-er.  If
no one dissented then all would be in agreement and we would have 'science
by consensus' which wouldn't be science at all.  We are so perilously
close to that description right now that I think most are unable to see
the line and hence notice not when they cross over it.
>>>        O.K., let me try.
>>>        "At certain areas of the Earth, generally located inland of
>>>continental margins, the epicenters of deep earthquakes are found 
>>>to be distributed from 50-300 km in depth, with the shallower
>>>epicenters nearer to the continental margin and the deeper epicenters
>>>further inland, such that an approximately 30 deg. angle is defined.
>>>The loss of "signal" deeper than 300 km coincides with the melt
>>>boundary of crustal material under those conditions of temperature
>>>and pressure.  How can the distribution of these epicenters be 
>>>accounted for?"
>>
>>I'd start by reading a book by S. Warren Carey.  'Theories of the Earth
>>and Universe' published by Stanford Univ. Press in 1988 which establishes
>>a different theoretical framework for even the origin of the earth.
>
>        I'll take a look for it at the nearby University library.
>Have you an ISDN number for it?
>
I assume you mean ISBN?  Yes.  0-8047-1364-2
>>>        I was really responding to your classification of 
>>>plate subduction as "nonsensical", which would essentially throw
>>>all of plate tectonics into question.  That's the main thing 
>>>I'd like to pursue (and since this is a geology newsgroup, it
>>>seems appropriate, amazingly enough).
>>>
>>
>>Well, see Carey's 13th chapter in the book I cited which is titled "The
>>Subduction Myth"
>
>        If it's in the University library, I can probably respond
>in September.
Just read the book several times.
-- 
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

In article <4vineo$12qg@chnews.ch.intel.com>, rpolo@sedona.intel.com (Ricardo Polo~) writes:
>
>In article , meron@cars3.uchicago.edu writes:
>> 
>> >
>> I'm afraid you're mistaken here.  I'm working with lots of people, 
>> most of them foreign born and yes, most of them (myself included) 
>> didn't go to school in the US.
>> 
>> Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
>> meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"
>
>
>that does it! you people that come to america to realize the AMERICAN dream,
>and then have the nerves to critizice are a bunch of ungreatful jack a....
>in my opinion.
>
Since when stating a fact is a criticism.  And no, my coming to 
America didn't have anything to do with any sort of American Dream.
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

In article , Sean Webb
 writes
[6 pages of old stuff deleted....sigh!]
>
>But the problem is that they seem to think they are ahead of everyone else.
nod.
>But i suppose , that when the average american isn't aware of whats going on in 
>the next state , you can't expect them to be any different.
That I couldnt vouch for...
>
>If they rely on CNN which is far from accurate and most certainly not un-biased 
>, 
>they will most certainly think that america is the best & most knowledgable
nor that.
>
>Trouble is that they are largely ignorant of what goes on in the rest of the 
>world , 
>but try to interfere eveywhere else based on the limited and distorted 
>information 
>that they do get. Thats how they have screwed up Vietnam, Bosnia ,Grenada , 
>Cambodia , South Africa etc etc
Um, I very much doubt America has managed to screw up all of
those...they had a LOT of help!  They also did a lot of good.  you have
to balance them all out.  Try to imagine the state of that sort of place
_without_ the American intervention...
Almighty, Inviolate, and Omnipresent  -  Physics.
        Andy Newman

My apologies (again), most of the groups this is posted to ARE relavent,
mail to Gvwmoore bounce the last time I tried it and my newsreader won't
let me post to most of the groups in the distribution unless I post to all
of them :P
'Course I could well be dangling on the end of some fishing line too making
this iritation for the sci.* groups even more worthless.
Last iteration.
Gvwmoore@netcom.com writes:
>well, duh. but you came from a different viewpoint than me.
So I figured out from another post.
>i say he couldn't because he was taught that
>a>longitude/latitude couldn't be gathered because
>	1>the church outlawed information that the earth wasn't the center of
>	the universe
long./lat. have to do with roundness, not whether the earth was or was not
the center of the universe.
>		a>which is how ships gather astronomical data
And since the Porteguese were doing this for decades if not centuries 
before Columbus and Portegal was not to the best of my knowledge under 
mass excomunication...
Given a decent telescope the old proof of seeing a ships sails before
the hull, as well as other proofs listed earlier in this thread
shows fairly simply that the Earth is round and that that would
have been known to the contemporaries of Columbus.
(Not to mention the historical evidence that agrees with that
conclusion)
>system wrote:
>>In short, it is perfectly reasonable that nobody would have gone exploring
>>before Columbus.
>>Gvwmoore@netcom.com writes:
>>>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.
>>>somebody wrote:
>>>>    The "belief of his time" was that the world was spherical.
>>>>    This was the "belief" for some 2000 years before Columbus.
>>>>somebody else wrote:
>>>>|> 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 :]
Now I'll go looking for a hook remover 
Robert
Morphis@physics.niu.edu
Real Men change diapers